Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Dunbar (1650)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2020 [1].

Battle of Dunbar (1650)

edit
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild, GirthSummit (blether) 10:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first major battle in the Third English Civil War, between the New Model Army under Oliver Cromwell, and a Scottish army under the command of David Leslie. Gog the Mild and I rewrote it between May and July of this year, with assistance from Harrias who made the maps of the battle. We have attempted to set out the series of events that led up to the conflict, describe the opposing forces, give an account of the battle itself, and explain what happened in the aftermath of the battle and why it was significant. There is also a brief description of the current condition of the battlefield. Since we published the article, it has been reviewed for GA and DYK; we hope that it's now ready for consideration as a featured article, and humbly present it for review. GirthSummit (blether) 10:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

edit

This might be something of a bits and pieces review, with me dropping in and adding more as I have time. As always, feel free to argue discuss any points: unless I am quoting a specific MOS, it is probably just my personal preference, rather than a requirement. I will probably claim WikiCup points for this review. Harrias talk 11:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "The Scots withdrew to Edinburgh stripping the land of provisions." Add a comma after Edinburgh.
Done.
  • "Due to the terrain Lesley.." Leslie?
Done.
  • Link cavalry and infantry on first use.
Done.
Done.

Background

  • "In England Charles's supporters.." Personally, I would prefer a comma after England.
Done.
Done; roundhead linked to "English parliamentarian" - to distinguish from the Scottish type.
  • "Charles now engaged.." replace "now" with "then".
Done.
  • "He rejected these as well however.." No need for "however", cut it.
Done.
  • "..by act of parliament.." I think "Act" should be capitalised.
Why? It is referring to a general, non-specific act, not to a specific act which would make it a proper noun.
Both Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries capitalise it even in the general usage, "An Act of Parliament", as does the UK Parliament. Harrias talk 12:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So? Wat matters is MOS:CAPS which I believe requires a lower case a. But I don't much care, so capitalised. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I might be misremembering how a dictionary works, but I thought that when they capitalised it, that meant they defined it as a proper noun, which would mean that MOS:CAPS requires it to be capitalised? Anyway, if you've changed it, I guess it is academic. Harrias talk 13:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why they capitalise it. The Cambridge Dictionary says that a proper noun is "the name of a particular person, place, or object that is spelled with a capital letter". So act of parliament used in a general sense, as it is here, cannot be a proper noun. (It's not a "particular ... object [thing]".) As you say, academic now. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking through the major broadsheets and books sources, and there is a mix. If you want to return it back to lower case, I won't object. I think essentially you could argue this either way, so applying the logic of MOS:RETAIN might be best. Harrias talk 06:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few titles/positions throughout where the capitalisation needs looking at. Check out MOS:JOBTITLES: for example, based on that MOS, "They pressured Thomas Fairfax, lord general of the New Model Army" should either be "They pressured Thomas Fairfax, Lord General of the New Model Army or "They pressured Thomas Fairfax, the lord general of the New Model Army. Similarly, in the lead, I think "of Charles II as king of Britain" should either be "of Charles II as King of Britain or "of Charles II as the king of Britain". There are more through these two sections. Honestly, overall, I find this a confusing area, so definitely feel free to shout back at me if you think I'm misinterpreting the MOS.
That section of the MoS has something been something of an area of special interest to me since I first became active here. This does not of course mean that I am necessarily interpreting it correctly, but I believe that the current usages, specifically the two you mention, are MoS compliant.

That's it so far, reviewed to the end of the Background section. Harrias talk 11:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Harrias. All good stuff. All of your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude

Opposing forces

  • Wikilink "rank" on first use.
Done.
  • It might be worth mentioning, maybe just in note 3, that musket butts were typically steel-lined for battle.
Good idea, do you have a source for this?
Sure, {{sfn|Royle|2005|p=194}}. Harrias talk 16:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers.
  • "..to some 45 centimetres (18 in) per man.." In this instance, I think "roughly" or "around" would suit better than "some".
@Approximately@.
  • "..more expensive then matchlock ones.." "than", not "then".
Done.
  • Wikilink "lances".
Done.
  • If you want to use "supernumerary", it's going to need a wiktionary link: I think substituting for a simpler word might be more accessible though.
Wiktionary link added.
  • "A high proportion of the remainder were ill.." Okay, so we started with 16,289: minus 2,000 odd makes roughly 14,000. Cromwell says that 11,000 were "sound". That leaves around 20% ill: is that a "high proportion"? (Using Royle's figure it would be more like 15%.)
Nice OR. I have unpacked my summary style to give the source's numbers and left it for a reader to decide how serious they are.
  • The final paragraph, about the artillery duplicates a lot of the information given in the artillery section before it.
I know, but it's one sentence and I struggle to see how I can subtract information from either without making them read badly or even incoherently.

Battle

  • "The whole Scottish army stood-to and the English withdrew slightly, maintaining patrols to try and ensure that the Scots were unaware of the manoeuvres going on behind them." Because it hasn't been explicitly mentioned that the English were manoeuvring, this is a bit confusing on first read; even though I theoretically knew what was happening, my first thought was that something was happening behind the Scottish lines.
Ah, yes, I can see that. I have moved the "In the foul weather it took the English army all night to reposition in preparation for the planned pre-dawn assault" sentence to the start of this paragraph. Does that remove the ambiguity? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and Major General James Holborn ordered.." and later, "..2,000 men under James Holborne..". Pick a consistent spelling, and move the wikilink to the first usage.
Sorry. The sources don't agree - that always confuses me. (There is even a Holburne!) Fixed. And moved.
  • "A little further downstream of Brand's Mill the English field artillery had set up.." Is it not upstream?
Yep. (It's down on the map!) Fixed.

Reviewed to the end of the Preparation section. Harrias talk 07:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove the link to Edinburgh from the Prelude section, per MOS:OVERLINK (also, the first mention comes earlier, in the background section.
Done
  • "In the confusion Pride's regiments came into action piecemeal and the leftmost (Lambert's) only engaged stragglers in the vicinity of Little Pinkerton." I'm confused at the mention of "Lambert's" here: is this a different Lambert to the cavalry commander? It sounds like it is talking about a regiment commander serving under Pride, but that doesn't fit the Lambert mentioned previously...
The name of the regiment is "Lambert's Regiment". Similarly one of the regiments in Monck's brigade was called Monck's Regiment. I could delete "(Lambert's)", which may be easiest. Or add an explanatory footnote. I think that trying to explain inline is going to wreck the flow.
I'd just remove it altogether, it doesn't add much, and is just likely to cause confusion. Harrias talk 13:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..sang the "117th Psalm"." Modern usage favours "Psalm 117", rather than "117th Psalm".
Truly? I have never even heard of that usage. (It reads like a typo to me.) You are aware that this is in British English? Quickly checking six sources I find two 117th's and no "psalm 117's". Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Just double checked with my wife, who was an altar server and sang in a church choir for years. Harrias talk 12:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And one of those Ngram things that CPA likes: [2]. Harrias talk 12:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you listen carefully, you can hear me being dragged into the 20th century. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..refused to take orders from him, and left Leslie's forces to join a new army that was being raised by the Western Association." There is a little ambiguity in this sentence at the moment: it might be tighter as "..refused to take orders from him, left Leslie's forces, and joined a new army that was being raised by the Western Association."
Done
  • "..had been put in a worldly prince.." Leslie? "worldly prince" could do with a bit more context and expansion; it's an odd phrase to stick with outside a quotation.
Charles II was the worldly prince, not Leslie (prince in the broader sense of the word, to encompass kingship). He'd signed the covenants, but they knew he'd been pushed into it and thought they were being punished for getting into bed with someone who wasn't a true believer. I've just changed this to 'Charles II'
Girth Summit: this was mostly your work. What do you think? (Harrias has a tendency in my experience to prefer more succinct backgrounds and aftermaths than me or most other reviewers. This doesn't, of course, make them wrong. Either in general or in this case.) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mm - missed this. I think that our article on the Third English Civil War could, and should, be expanded upon, and it's very likely that the ground we cover here would also be covered in such an article - but, I'd suggest that we would need to do it in more depth there. What we provide here is four paragraphs (two of them very brief) covering the immediate effects of the battle on the government and military preparedness of Scotland (i.e. that the cracks between the competing factions were greatly widened, and Leslie's remaining men started deserting to join a different army - divided we fall, etc), and then three paragraphs skimming quickly over the rest of the campaign, which is closely linked to Dunbar in the sources (as exemplified by the Coward quote we provide). So unless Harrias isn't going to put us to the push of pike on this, I would resist any major trimming to this section. GirthSummit (blether) 12:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair Gog, I complained that the aftermath section in your last FAC was too short, I think. Simply put, I think the current aftermath violates FACR #4: "going into unnecessary detail". For example, the point at which I really started thinking it had gone too far was when we started going into detail about the sacking of Dundee. In the context of the Battle of Dunbar, "Dundee, the last significant Scottish stronghold, fell on 1 September; Monck's troops sacked the town, and several hundred civilians, including women and children, were killed. Monck admitted to 500, but the total may have been as high as 1,000. Monck then allowed the army 24 hours for looting and a large amount of booty was seized. Subsequently, strict military discipline was enforced." could have been simply "Dundee, the last significant Scottish stronghold, fell on 1 September." That is just one example, but I think throughout the section, some of the detail could be plucked out, leaving the framework intact. Yes, it is all good information, but this just isn't the place for the detail: that should go elsewhere. Harrias talk 13:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmph - I am here upon an engagement very difficult. I've trimmed Dundee, and also cut a couple of sentences from the end about nature of Scottish government in the years after the defeat. How do you feel about it now? GirthSummit (blether) 13:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Brox burn" "Broxburn"?
Done

That's it from me I think. Harrias talk 14:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias - I've done most of these, leaving two for Gog the Mild as they concern the bits of the article/sourcing he's more familiar with. GirthSummit (blether) 10:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: I have commented on the two outstanding issues. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Replied, and marked two more that I haven't seen responses to. Harrias talk 12:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild and Girth Summit: Why does the article now seem to go back in time at the start of the Outflanking manoeuvre section? After a few hours of fighting, we finish the previous section saying that "The battle hung in the balance". But then, we go right back to "By around 4:00 am.." again? Harrias talk 13:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was some changes GtM made in the last hour or so to address some of Cassianto's comments - Gog the Mild, do you want to pick back through your last few edits and make it say what it's meant to? GirthSummit (blether) 13:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Sorry, and thanks Harrias. A sentence which I inserted into the middle of Preparation for Cassianto somehow also got pasted to the start of Flank attack and I didn't notice. Fixed. Probably time for me to take a break. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image page for the Dunbar victory medal says that "It is believed to be the first medal to be granted to all the ranks of an army." If we have a RS that backs that up, then that should really be in the article. Even if not, it feels odd having an image of something that is not mentioned at all in the article; work it in somehow. (Yes, I know, I was asking for the aftermath to be trimmed, and now I'm asking for stuff to be added. But this seems more relevant to the subject of this article than a lot of what is present in the article at the moment.) Harrias talk 09:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harrias, if you have a RS for this I would be happy to see it. Frankly it sounds like a hobbyist's opinion to me. None of the sources I have looked at in putting this together have mentioned this hypothesis, and you wouldn't think that it is the sort of thing eight or ten academics would miss. At near random the National Portrait Gallery, for example, makes no mention of this. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't have an RS for it. If nothing more, the caption should be expanded a little to provide greater context, and cited. At the moment, the article does not make it clear what the medal is. Harrias talk 13:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox does not summarise the full range of casualty estimates given in the prose; looking, it seems to largely adopt Reid's figures. The prose accepts that "Several modern secondary sources accept" Cromwell's figures: if that is the case, the infobox should include that full range of estimates, surely?
Harrias I'm not sure that I quite agree that that's what we're doing. Cromwell claims 10,000 "killed or captured", but doesn't differentiate how many of each, and since he says he let many of them go the following day I'd argue that they wouldn't fall into the 'prisoners' category. I think that figures in the infobox represent the most specific numbers we can get at for estimates of those actually killed, those wounded, and those actually taken south as prisoners. Does that allay your concern?
"killed near four thousand" vs "300–500 killed"? Harrias talk 16:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Damn - you're right, I misread (misglanced ought to be a word) that. I'll remind myself tomorrow what Woolrych and Furgol actually say about this and think about how best to address this. GirthSummit (blether) 16:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've checked them both. Furgol states 4,000 killed, Woolrych gives it as over 3,000. To put that into context though - neither of them give the source for those figures, or discuss them in any detail, they each just report the figures as fact in single sentences. These are fairly broad histories of the whole campaign, each giving the battle less than a page - for details like this, I am inclined to put much more weight in studies of the battle itself which discuss their methodologies, rather than a brief mention from someone who probably just needed to find a number to stick in to round off the section.
I wonder whether there would be scope in the infobox for us to be a bit more specific - is it possible/acceptable for us to put three ranges in there along the lines of:
  • Cromwell's report: nearly 4,000
  • Balfour's estimate: 800-900
  • Modern estimate: 300-500
I just don't see how putting in a range as broad as 300-4000 is helpful for the reader - people would probably interpret is as a typo, with either a missing 0 or an extra 0, and scratch their heads! GirthSummit (blether) 14:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that for this reason, I often omit the casualty field from infoboxes completely for battles where it isn't possibly to give relatively precise figures. I should also point out that I get moaned at during reviews for not having it. Possibly, we could just quote the "modern estimates" in the infobox, with a footnote including an explanation that only the modern estimates are given, and providing the other figures? Harrias talk 17:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea, and will do it once I get a moment. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I started to do this, and realised that all I was doing was copying much of the information from the "casualties" section into the note, which seemed pointless. So instead I have added a short note and a link under the Scottish casualties in the infobox specifically directing readers to the "Casualties" section for further information. Will that suffice? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stewart, Laura A.M. (2017)." doesn't seems to be used anymore: either use her, or ditch her.
You heard it here first, Girth  ;) ——Serial 16:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much it; this is a great article, sorry to have been such a nitpick through this review! Harrias talk 15:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Stewart - I think it would be odd to omit her entirely, since she's one of the main scholars working on the Scottish government of this period (plus she's actually read over this article a couple of times and given us some feedback) but we're still using her 2016 book - the stuff about Dundee can go into another article about the campaign itself. GirthSummit (blether) 16:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I wasn't suggesting removing the other reference, just that unused one needed to be used or removed, which you've done, so that's all to the good. Harrias talk 16:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • At least the first map should include a legend indicating what the colours and patterns mean, and the image description pages should include sourcing
Both done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit: Looks good to me. I have added mine. Would you care to repay the favour? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild: there was what looked like a rogue paste, I've fixed, the rest looks good to me. How confident are you on PD US tags - do you think I've added it correctly to the portrait of Cromwell? GirthSummit (blether) 16:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit: Thanks.
Well, I do the occasional, more simple, FAC image review, and IMO yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Oliver_Cromwell_by_Samuel_Cooper.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:David_Leslie,_Lord_Newark_portrait_(cropped).jpg needs a US PD tag and a publication date
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Er, there don't appear to have been any changes made? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:, apologies. I don't know what went wrong. I remember doing the research and thought that I had seen it on the page. I assume that I forgot to click Publish or something equally stupid. Now (re)done and apologies again. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria and many thanks for going through the images. I believe that all of youcomments have now been actioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, did you spot NM's comment above? GirthSummit (blether) 07:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't. Thanks. That is very odd. I remember doing the research. I assume that I forgot to click Publish or something. I can remember where it was and I'll redo the necessary tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

edit
  • This'll only be my second review of a Scottish history-related article after Gog's Siege of Berwick (1333), and since my grandmother was Scottish and we know little about her side of the family, it'll be interesting to read. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infantry and cavalry appears to be duplinked.
    I've removed duplinks
  • Maybe the roles of the people shown could be stated in the image captions? Now it's just names without context.
    I've expanded their captions slightly
  • Some of the really small images could maybe benefit form being default size?
    Which images are you thinking of?
"An English lobster-tailed pot helmet" and "The Dunbar victory medal". FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have enlarged a number of the images. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The white space under Outflanking manoeuvre is kind of unfortunate. Maybe the many maps on the right could be arranged horizontally (in a sort of gallery og sequential images) to prevent it? That could also ope up space for more images in those sections if available.
    At the moment the maps are arranged so as to sit next to the description of the part of the battle they illustrate. I'd be concerned that they would be less helpful if separated from the text and presented horizontally as you suggest; perhaps Gog the Mild has some thoughts on that?
If it fits the adjacent text of each, it should be ok then. FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Civil War reenactors" Could there be a more specific caption? is it showing the third English civil war as would be relevant?
    According to the description, this is a reenactment of a siege of the First English Civil War. I don't think it matters enormously though, that was just a few years prior to Dunbar and I don't think there were any major changes in equipment that you would notice in a photograph - calling them 'civil war reenactors' is accurate, and the relevance to this article should be clear.
I agree with Girth Summit. The First, Second and Third English Civil Wars started and finished within 9 years and 12 days, with no discernable changes in dress or equipment. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review and comments FunkMonk - I've addressed some of them, and made a few of my own, above. GirthSummit (blether) 15:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reform the Scottish Kirk" Interesting it's called that, being a Danish speaker, where church is "kirke", this seems to be a Norse loanword. But the Church of Scotland article doesn't give an etymology (not that you have to do anything about it)...
    I'm not an etymologist, but my assumption would be that the English 'church' and the Scots 'kirk' are both descended from the same north-Germanic word, but that the English variant has had the 'k' softened to 'ch' over time. That's a completely unsupportable guess though! Certainly both words must come from Germanic sources, rather than the Latin 'ecclesia' (which is used in Scots Gaelic, 'eaglais', and in French 'église', which is where most of our non-Germanic words come from).
The kirk article seems to have it, though with no source: "Whereas church displays Old English palatalisation, kirk is a loanword from Old Norse and thus retains the original mainland Germanic consonants. Compare cognates: Icelandic & Faroese kirkja; Swedish kyrka; Norwegian (Nynorsk) kyrkje; Danish and Norwegian (Bokmål) kirke". FunkMonk (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A contemporary English view of the Scots imposing conditions on Charles II in return for their support" Link Charles II in caption?
    Done
  • "Cromwell at Dunbar, by Andrew Carrick Gow" Give year for painting, so we know it's not contemporary?
    Done
  • Link dysentery?
    Done
  • "with about one metre" you convert other length measurements, why not here?
    Done
  • "Most of the English cavalry were mounted on large, for the time, horses." Do we know which breed?
    I don't know, and I suspect that wasn't standardised, but Gog the Mild might have more on this.
I haven't come across a source which mentions this. My OR guess would be that they bought or otherwise acquired the heaviest horses they could and didn't worry too much about the breed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3 to 20 pounds (1.4 to 9 kg)" For length measurements here, you give the metric number first, why the disrepancy?
    I see this as the difference between describing a thing, and naming a thing. Pikes were just pikes - they had a standard length, which we can describe in modern units. Historically speaking though, a three pound gun was a thing, distinct from a nine pound gun. I think it makes sense to give the calibres in the units that would have been used at the time, and then to give the metric equivalent to help the reader understand what that meant.
Yep. Imagine writing Four Kilogramme Hammer. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More responses above FunkMonk. I'd like to hear Gog's thoughts before changing the image sizes (he wrote those sections and selected the images). GirthSummit (blether) 15:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In September 2015 archaeologists announced" Is the month of any significance?
No. But as we have the information would you wish us to leave it out? (I assume that if it read 'in the 21st century you would ask us to be more precise?)
Not a big deal either way. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mass grave is linked at second mention.
Fixed
Done.
  • Any photos of the locations involved today?
Possibly. Let me have a search.
Gog the Mild, FunkMonk I found this, which shows a (rather naff) commemorative plaque, and this which shows the view from the top of Doon Hill down onto the battlefield, but if I'm honest I don't think they would really add anything to the article, either in terms of informing the reader, or merely as decorations. GirthSummit (blether) 15:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think they'd add some nice flavour to the article, especially the plaque maybe, since it shows the event's significance even today, and reflects the text about the mass grave. But of course, it's up to you. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with GS, but who are we to argue with a reviewer. I have found a couple of bland landscape shots which could perhaps be worked into the battle section, but I think that the plaque in the last section is our best bet. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I uploaded the image to commons, and have added it to the relevant section - feel free to tinker with size, placement. GirthSummit (blether) 10:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite Cromwell's army being greatly weakened by sickness and lack of food, the battle was decisively won by the English force." Shouldn't it for balance then also be mentioned that the Scottish forces were weakened by religious purges, which the article makes a big deal of?
Good point. I have trimmed the first paragraph and moved both of these points to the end of the second.
  • I wonder if the The Dunbar victory medal image should be shown under English conquest instead of casualties, where it seems a bit misplaced?
Moved. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

edit

I've read from top to bottom and enjoyed it very much. A few comments:

Preparation
  • "In the foul weather it took the English army" -- not liking "foul" here - "bad" is better.
I am not at all keen on "bad" - although you're the reviewer, so I will use it if pushed. As a poor second, how would you feel about "stormy"?
I am indeed a reviewer, but you are the nominator so the decision to adopt any suggestion I make is entirely down to you - I certainly won't push you to adopt anything you don't feel comfortable using. CassiantoTalk 12:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am very aware that nominators (even me!) get close to their creations, and that a first response can be defensive. I suspect that that is partially what is happening here. So even when I don't like a suggestion I try to take a reviewer's PoV on board. I suspect that in my response above you could see the cogs going round. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Inclement weather'? 'Typical Scottish summer weather'? More seriously, 'Adverse weather conditions?' GirthSummit (blether) 11:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely "typical" is redundant. I like "In the adverse weather conditions". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So do I. Let's go for that. CassiantoTalk 12:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...without any overrunning them and alerting the Scots." -- could this be looked at again as it's not quite making sense.
Rephrased as "By around 4:00 am all of the English reached at least approximately their intended positions; none had gone past them in the dark and blundered into and so alerted the Scots."
"all of the English"...what? Sounds clunky. "By around 4:00 am, the English reached, approximately, their intended positions; none [what] had gone past them in the dark and [they] blundered into and so alerted the Scots". -- I can't even reword this last part as I can't make head nor tail of it." CassiantoTalk 12:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I am trying to say, obviously ineptly, is that in the dark it would be the easiest thing in the world for an English unit to advance a little too far, past its designated jumping off point, blunder into the Scottish outposts or even units, start a firefight and completely remove the "surprise" element of the surprise attack. It would be even easier to simply get lost and not reach their jumping off point in time, or at all. That A) all of them more or less found their positions and B) none did overrun them are two separate minor miracles. An entire army redeploying to attack in the face of the enemy and in the dark! It speaks to very well trained troops and the possibility that God was indeed smiling on Cromwell. It is the sort of thing that the greatest of generals never tried, because they never thought that they could pull it off.
Now, how do I get that into a succinct and comprehensible sentence? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about: By around 4:00 am, the English troops had taken up positions approximately where Cromwell had intended them to be; certainly, none of them had made the mistake in the dark of going too far and alerting the Scots to their manoeuvres. Or something like that? GirthSummit (blether) 12:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! I mistook that for Cassianto's comment and have just used it. Any hoo, Cassianto, does that work for you? Possibly I could put some background into a footnote? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- all concerns addressed. This is a very good article. Worthy of FA. CassiantoTalk 15:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initial assault
  • "Reese reports that many of them were new recruits who had only recently joined the brigade." -- are "new recruits" and "only recently joined the brigade" both needed?
IMO yes. One could, and they often did, muster a new regiment consisting entirely of veterans. Recently joined/been around awhile and raw/veteran aren't (necessarily) interchangeable. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, understood. CassiantoTalk 22:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Outflanking manoeuvre
  • "Just what happened next, as with so much of this battle, is contested." -- I don't like this line. It sounds too conversational. Is there a way of reworking it? For example, "just" is not needed at all.
Fair enough. Changed to "As with other aspects of the battle, the sources differ regarding what happened next." How's that?
  • "The Scottish cavalry holding Cockburnpath Defile and most of the defeated Scottish cavalry from their right wing rode a wide loop south and then west of Doon Hill to rejoin Leslie's main force as it withdrew towards their forward base at Haddington, 8 miles (13 km) to the west of the battlefield." -- this seems awfully long not to have any punctuation in it and it makes it quite difficult to read.
Split in two. See if that reads better
  • "Entirely separately the English cavalry gradually got the better of their Scottish counterparts..." Could this sentence be understood just as much without the (in my view) unneeded adjective?
"Entirely separately" binned; replaced with "meanwhile".
Scottish response
  • "The more practical blamed the purges for Leslie's defeat" -- not much sense is being made my end with regards to this sentence. It may be down to punctuation...?
I've rephrased this a bit, hopefully makes more sense now? I'll be slopey-shouldered and leave GtM to consider the points above, that is his prose and he has the sources. GirthSummit (blether) 14:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CassiantoTalk 09:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto Apologies for taking so long to get back to you on this. I think that between us we have addressed all of the points you have raised so far. Any more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cromwell's own fist re. Dunbar

edit

If anyone has—or knows anyone with, perhaps—access to the National Library of Scotland, they could photograph this, a Letter of Oliver Cromwell to the Committee for the Army concerning the medal to commemorate the Battle of Dunbar. {{Db-scan}} would apply for the license and might add something to the aftermath section, mirroring as it does the photo of the medal itself. ——Serial 17:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know several people with access to the NLS, and I expect that I could twist one person in particular's arm to get a picture of this for us at some point - not sure when though, I believe the building's open again but term time is starting, not sure when a trip to Edinburgh will be possible. GirthSummit (blether) 16:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 I spoke to a certain someone with access to the NLS - she doesn't think this will fly. Having used images from the NLS for books in the past, she says that they are very cagey about allowing you to take photographs - you have to sign agreements that they are only for private use, or you have to pay them significant whacks of cash if you want to distribute them. So, this isn't looking like something we'll be able to get hold of in the short term. :( GirthSummit (blether) 10:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> Who said the age of institutional heritage banditry was done? OK, nevermind. ——Serial 13:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • BBC News is not an author. Ditto Durham University
Removed.
  • Be consistent in how you order refs without named authors
I think they're now ordered alphabetically, based on how they're presented to the reader.
  • National Portrait Gallery should just be listed as publisher
Done.
  • Dow title should use endash
Done.
  • Be consistent in how you punctuate refs with multiple authors
Gog the Mild - I've looked at this, and I can see what NM is talking about - Hutton and Reeves gets an ampersand, but Ffoulks and Hopkinson don't, for example. I can't see a difference in how we're putting the information into the Cite Book format though - why are they appearing differently? Is it because Ffoulks and Hopkinson have middle names do you think? Or can your eyes see something mine are missing? GirthSummit (blether) 10:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's because Ffoulkes and Hopkinson were missing "|lastauthoramp=y" which I have added. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - good spot, hadn't noticed that field.
  • Reese and Wanklyn have the same publisher but it's formatted differently.
Fixed.

Ditto Dow and Young.

Fixed.

Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria I think that's all done now, thank you. GirthSummit (blether) 11:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Dunbar_(1650)/archive1&oldid=977106444"