Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Babylon Hill/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 30 January 2020 [1].

---

Battle of Babylon Hill

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 10:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The Battle of Babylon Hill of little more than an early skirmish of the First English Civil War. Both sides were inexperienced and still learning the art of war. As such, the description of this engagement as "more muddle than battle" is fitting. Ralph Hopton was considered one of the more able of the Royalist leaders, and yet here he found himself needlessly ambushed by the enemy.

The article underwent both a GAN and then a MILHIST A-class review in October. As always, all feedback will be gratefully received. Harrias ^talk 10:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere
  • @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review; I've gone through this, the only detail that I can see lacking a citation is the Parliamentarian numbers, which I will add in later, was there anything else? Harrias ^talk 19:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• • • Casualty counts. Infobox says 3–16 Parliamentarians - I see the 3, where's the 16 from? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Of course: both now included in the main text with appropriate citations. Harrias ^talk 09:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• "modern estimates are that the Royalists lost around twenty, and the Parliamentarians five" - I see this claim attributed to a single historian in the body, are there others that support this? If no, should make clear that this is a single modern estimate only
  • Good point, done. Harrias ^talk 12:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Batten work title is incomplete
  • Expanded. Harrias ^talk 12:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Morris title is missing some commas. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Added a comma before "Yeovil". Harrias ^talk 12:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Zawed

My comments focus more on prose/narrative rather than on the subject matter itself given my limited knowledge of the period/topic.

• Background: "...established a siege of Sherborne..." Suggest "besieged Sherborne"?
  • Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Background: "During the first day,..." Suggest "On the first day,...", seems to flow better
  • Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Background: Any indication of the size of the Royalist garrison at Sherborne?
  • I'll need to refer back to my source text. Bear with me on this one. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Added this. Harrias ^talk 09:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Prelude: "Hertford sent Hopton with around 350 men" Delete "with"
  • I disagree, that would change the meaning of the sentence completely. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Prelude: Referring to foot soldiers and musketeers separately seems confusing as I think they are the one and the same? Perhaps just refer to 200 musketeers?
  • It is unclear from the sources whether all 200 were musketeers. I strongly suspect they were, but it is possible that some were pike men. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Battle: "...the Royalist leaders decided to retire to Sherborne..." This seems a little vague here as isn't Hopton the overall commander on site? The following sentence refers to the hill (I would suggest explicitly stating Babylon Hill) so it seems this isn't in relation to all Royalist forces outside of Sherborne.
  • Clarified to "Hopton consulted with his commanders". Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Battle: "Colonel Lawdy" link colonel, I notice captain is linked later so ranks should be treated similarly.
  • Done. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Battle: "...cavalry into array..." The wording seems strange here (perhaps you didn't want to get too close to the language of the sources) but I would suggest either "into an array" or just "into battle formation" or similar.
  • Yeah, I was avoiding close para-phrasing. I'll need to check the source text before I make a change. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Changed to your second suggestion. Harrias ^talk 09:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Battle: "The account records that when Captain Tomson reached the fighting..." No context for who Tomson is here, perhaps the commander of another one of the Parliamentarian troops of cavalry?
  • I'll need to refer back to my source text. Bear with me on this one too. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Clarified this. Harrias ^talk 09:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Aftermath: "...on parliament's side..." shouldn't it be Parliament? Ditto for "sympathetic towards parliament".
  • Yes, I'm pretty haphazard with this, but they should all be fixed now. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Another interesting read about the English Civil War. Hope the feedback helps in making this an FA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zawed: Thanks for the review. I've responded to most of the points above, a couple will have to wait for me to have my book sources handy. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zawed: I have addressed the last few issues, let me know if there is anything else. Harrias ^talk 09:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

• wielding "pitchforks, dungpecks, and suchlike weapons. - can this be rephrased to remove same workds and quote marks?
  • Simplified to "wielding makeshift weapons such as pitchforks." Harrias ^talk 12:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Hopton established Babylon Hill as a suitable location to observe the town, due to hedge-lined gullies which allowed his troops to climb the hill unobserved from the town - would be nice if we could eliminate one use of the word "town" and "observe/unobserved", however an alternative is not sprining to mind....
  • Changed to "Hopton established Babylon Hill as a suitable location to watch the town, due to hedge-lined gullies which allowed his troops to climb the hill unobserved." Harrias ^talk 12:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise reads very well - nice clear English, coherent, succinct and easy to follow. Seems to be to be on track comprehensiveness- and prose-wise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Casliber: I have made changes to each phrase, let me know what you think. Harrias ^talk 12:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note: Just to explain why I have been quiet here: we did some sorting over Christmas, and I can't currently find my copy of The Battle of Babylon Hill Yeovil 1642, which much of the article is based on. Harrias ^talk 09:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I know the feeling well...I have most of my books packed up atm. Driving me nuts Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

Unfortunately this has moved well past the two-week mark without any support for promotion or much activity at all. I've placed it on the Urgents list but it will be archived in the coming days if it does not receive significant attention soon. --Laser brain (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Will the completion of the standing reviews do? Otherwise I can chime in. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

I have done a little copy editing, which you will wish to check. Revert at will.

• "but they were forced to leave the town on 6 August" Worth, IMO, clarifying that "the town" is Wells, lest readers, not unreasonably, take it to be Marshall's Elm.
  • Done. Harrias ^talk 18:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• "Hopton established Babylon Hill as a suitable location to watch the town" Do you mean that 'Hopton established that Babylon Hill was a suitable location from which to watch the town', or that 'Hopton established himself on Babylon Hill, a suitable location to watch the town'?
  • Well, both. Tweaked to hopefully capture both meanings without getting too clunky. Harrias ^talk 18:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I gave this a pretty thorough going over at ACR, but even so, I am surprised that this is all that I can find to pick at. I must be losing my touch! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Either that, or I'm finally learning how to write... Harrias ^talk 18:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, oh! I am so wanting to give a "humorous" response, but all of those I can think of are too open to misinterpretation. Seriously, your articles are always well written, and this one especially so. Yeah, IMO that meets all of the FA criteria 1, 2 and 4 bar 1c (sources - signed off above). Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• Inconsistent use of alt text.

• • Sorted this. Harrias ^talk 19:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "The Battle of Babylon Hill was a skirmish" I think it would be helpful to give the result at the start, e.g. "The Battle of Babylon Hill was an indecisive skirmish"
  • Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• "they spotted a group of Parliamentarian soldiers" I would take "group" to imply a small number. How about "contingent"?
  • Trimmed down to "they spotted Parliamentarian soldiers approaching"
• "though many of their troops were routed" This sounds wrong to me. You can rout a group, not individuals. Also, according to the account below, sections of both sides were routed, not only the royalists.
  • Changed to "though sections of both forces were routed"
• "began withdrawing their infantry" What does "their" refer to? I would say "the infantry".
  • Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• "A Parliamentarian report from the battle described that". "described that" sounds odd. Maybe "According to a Parliamentarian account of the battle"
  • Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• "Hopton lists that" Again odd. I suggest Hopton states that"
  • Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• "According to Hopton, Stowell was successful in routing the approaching enemy, but his inexperienced cavalry were outnumbered and themselves routed" This sounds contradictory. If the enemy were routed, they could not outnumber the royalists.
  • And yet, that is what the sources tell us happened. "Capt. Stowell charg'd verie gallantly and routed the enemy, but withall (his troope consisting of new horse, and the Enemy being more in number) was rowted himselfe ; and Capt. Moreton, being a litle too neere him, was likewise broaken with the same shocke". Harrias ^talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• "In total, the Parliamentarians committed a similar number, around 350 men, to the fight" This should be in the lead as you state the number of royalists there.
  • Added into the lead. Harrias ^talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• "In a letter sent by the prominent Royalist Sir Edward Nicholas, he described that" Do you mean "to Nicholas? Also "described that" again.
  • No; have rephrased this to "In a letter written by.."
• "Morris suggests that" As this is the first time you mention him you should give his full name.
  • Good spot; have expanded to "In his account of the battle, the historian Robert Morris.."
• Aftermath section. You mention the retreat to Yeovil in paragraph one, but describe it in paragraph two. I would swap the paragraphs round.
  • Another good point. I have swapped them as suggested. Harrias ^talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• "Hertford travelled with the infantry and artillery to Wales" Presumably they took the boats, so I would say "Hertford sailed for clarity.
  • Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• The content of this article seems fine so far as I know with no knowledge of the subject, but the language is sometimes clumsy. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Thank you for your review; "the language is sometimes clumsy" is essentially my style, much as I strive to improve! I have responded to each point above, mostly adopting your advice directly, but sometimes with variation as noted. Harrias ^talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.