Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Berwick (1333)/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2019 [1].

Siege of Berwick (1333)

edit
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an examination of a siege which led to a catastrophe for Scottish arms and England becoming once again embroiled in the running sore of the Scottish wars. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk, Serial Number 54129, Casliber, and CPA-5: Apologies for the delayed response. I somehow managed to delete this from my watchlist. Many thanks to all four of you for taking a look at this. Apologies for the high incidence of errors and infelicities which you have kindly picked up and pointed out. I have, I think, addressed all of the points you have raised below.
Gog the Mild (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
Thanks.
  • I wonder if this[2] monument photo could be useful, perhaps in the aftermath section? Or maybe it is too tangential?
There is a separate article on the battle, which features this image prominently. I have tried to concentrate very much on the siege, lest I be accused of gratuitously creating an article which would be best merged with Battle of Halidon Hill. It seems to me that it is part of the aftermath of the battle, not of the siege.
Now we're at it, what is the rationale for separating the two articles? Seems they would fit snugly into one (here)? FunkMonk (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) well, if anything, combined the resultant article would be ~80,000 bytes, and per WP:TOOBIG—not policy by any means, of course—articles that size probably should be divided. Imho only, it might be undue. ——SerialNumber54129 15:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is increasingly being ignored as Internet gets faster, though, see the size of recent FAs Maya civilization and Cleopatra (both more than double the size of what the combined article here would be)... FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am clearly not opposed to loooong articles myself; but I'm not particularly comfortable with assuming the internet speed of readers outside the West, tbh. Although clearly the articles are connected, they deserve discrete treatments. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 15:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm interested in knowing where the distinction is drawn here, though. It is not entirely clear from reading the article. As for 80 kb articles, I'd say that's well within average size of recent FAs. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a necessary question, certainly: perhaps a move discussion is indicated? Apologies, though, to you for not allowing the nom to answer, and apologies to the nom for hijacking the thread. ——SerialNumber54129 15:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: No problem, this is Wikipedia - hijack away. You brought up a couple of points which hadn't occurred to me.

@FunkMonk: Give me a little longer and I will come back on this.

@FunkMonk and Serial Number 54129: You have put your finger squarely on a reductionist dilemma. There is, so far as I can see, no logical boundary. The lumpers and the splitters will have to fight it out. However, a few reasons for a separate article, in addition to the points Serial Number 54129 raises, spring to mind:

  1. The MilHist tradition of separating out battles from campaigns, where sources permit. Eg there is an article on the Normandy Campaign in WWII, a separate one on D-Day, five more for the individual landings plus four covering the various operations of the 6th Airbourne division on D-Day alone. Plus articles on various commando, Ranger and resistance activities and on the air bombardment, the naval bombardment, the logistic arrangements, etc, etc. Similarly the Battle of Waterloo has at least ten articles on the two week campaign.
  2. The siege seems to have received a fair amount of coverage from RSs independent of the battle.
  3. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One can reasonably assume that readers consult it for a digested view of a particular topic, with clear indicators to related topics, rather than a text book size review of everything related to it in the original article.
  4. In this particular case I would have thought that someone wanting information about the battle would not wish to wade through the minutiae of the siege, and to a lesser extent the reverse. Much as a reader wanting information on English Bulldogs would not wish that to be bundled into Canis lupus familiaris on the entirely logical grounds that they are all one species. At which point the H. s. sapiens discussion occurs to me and I realise that I am getting well off topic.

I will leave it at that for now. If it ends up in a formal move discussion I'll dig into the policies properly, but so far I haven't turned up anything directly relevant.

  • Link Yorkshire?
Done.
Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "announcing that it was Scotland who was" Is it common to refer to countries as "who?
No, it's not. Corrected.
  • Why do measurements have imperial units first? Given this is a UK topic, I'd expect the metric system to be primary here.
I'm not with you. It has imperial units first because it is a UK topic, per WP:UNIT.
  • "Based on Sumption" Why not give date as well?
Because that's in footnote 47, cited immediately after "Based on Sumption".
  • You say both Robert the Bruce and Robert Bruce', should perhaps be consistent.
Apologies, I thought that I had picked up all of those. Done.
  • "the attacks by land and sea had brought the town was to a state of ruin" Seems "was" is superfluous.
It is. Removed.
  • I wonder if it would be more pleasing to the eye if the trebuchet image was right aligned; it would then "aim" towards the text (rather than away), similar to how we are encouraged to place images of people so that they face the text.
Done.
  • "Alexander Seton was responsible for the defence of the town." You should introduce him, like you do others. Now, I only know he was the governor by this line: " William Seton, son of the Governor".
Good point. Done.
  • "A 19th-century view" Why not just give the date? Artist could be linked as well.
Because it seems to me to be superfluous and potentially distracting detail. To my mind giving the precise year would actually not be as informative as giving the general period. Similarly re the artist; the image is meant to represent a whole era's view of the battle. If you feel that it is failing to do that, then fine; I can remove it. If you think that the date and artist need to be more accessible than clicking on the image I could add a footnote.
  • "If Berwick were to be saved immediate action on the part of the Scottish guardian was unavoidable" Direct quotes should be attributed in-text.
Only if the quote is an opinion, which this is of course. Thanks for picking that up. Done.
  • "To save the lives of those who remained Keith, who" I'm pretty sure there should be a comma before the name too.
Done.
  • "Edward III had for his queen he knew that Bamburgh" This seems nonsensical.
Correct. Some text had gone missing. Fixed.
  • "after a Scottish army bypassed him and advanced on York, where his queen was staying, devastated Yorkshire and defeated" and "after a Scottish army had advanced on York, where his queen was staying and devastated Yorkshire" seems like you repeat something without being aware of the repetition. Perhaps you could make it clear that this is a reiteration.
Oh dear. I hadn't spotted that. Both reworded.
  • "and William Keith was to be allowed" You don't need to spell out full names after first mention. You've usually just said Keith until then.
Fixed.
  • "Sir William Keith and the Earl" Likewise.
Fixed.
  • "Sir Alexander Seton in turn did homage" Likewise, and why only refer to him as Sir all the way down here?
Incompetence? Both fixed.
  • Douglas "had little choice but to re-cross the Tweed and face Edward's army" again needs attribution, though I'm not sure why this and other such quotes can't just be paraphrased.
Paraphrased.
  • "but this would guartantee to loss of Berwick" Guarantee the loss?
Correct. Thanks. Fixed.
  • "the future Richard III, in 1482." Could add "of England" just to make it clear for everyone (even unfamiliar readers) where the town went to.
Good point. Done. A little differently than you suggest.
  • Pretty much ready to support, just want to make sure if something more is on its way considering your comment "You brought up a couple of points which hadn't occurred to me", as well as thoughts on separation of the two intertwined articles. FunkMonk (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FunkMonk My comment re the "couple of points" was an encouragement for SN54129 to hijack, as the comments he had already made included some germane points which had not and probably would not have occurred to me. There is no more to come from me other than the fairly casual musings on lumping and splitting above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this article looks good to me now, and I can't say I know enough about the subject to give any qualified opinion on whether the two articles should be separate or not. FunkMonk (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber

edit

Interesting read. Queries below:

The Siege of Berwick took place in 1333 when the Scottish-held town of Berwick-upon-Tweed was captured by an English army commanded by King Edward III (r. 1327–1377) after a siege of four months - I know it is prudent to have the article name in the sentence. I wish there was some way of reducing the repetition of "seige", maybe "The Siege of Berwick took place over four months in 1333, ending with the capture of the Scottish-held town of Berwick-upon-Tweed by an English army commanded by King Edward III (r. 1327–1377)" or something like that...?
Good thinking. Done.
Berwick was a prosperous town; according to... - you could subtract the" Berwick was a prosperous town" segment as it is explained in the following segment - let Edington's words speak for themselves.
Done.
propter incursiones Scotorum cum incendijs ac multas alias illatas iniurias regno Anglie - should this be italicised?
It certainly should. Done.
Apologies for the disjointed response; only part of what I thought I had written seems to have actually happened.
Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

<placeholder>I'll get to this in the next couple of days; I think I've got most of the sources. ——SerialNumber54129 10:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SN, given you have sources, could I ask you to spotcheck for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing (something I'd usually request at an editor's first nom but didn't), as well as undertaking the regular source review for formatting and reliability? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Ian Rose. ——SerialNumber54129 12:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources used.
  • The following are all undoubtedly high-quality and generally academic sources: Barrow, Blackenstall, Brown, Corfis + Wolfe, de Brie, Forster, Geldard, King, MacDonald Fraser, Maurer, Maxwell, McKisack, Nicholson, Oman, Ormrod, Prestwich, Robson, Rodwell, Rogers, Strickland + Hardy, Sumption, Weir, Wyntourn.
  • Creighton is dated; since it is a general history, does it say anything that hasn't been said much more recently—and if it's only referencing Balliol's disinherited, a more up to date piece of scholarship is suggested.
Crieghton was duplicated by Weir. I am not entirely sure why I left him in. Now removed.
  • I'd like to question—without prejudice—what makes the following reliable sources? Northumberland Tourist Office, the Battlefields Resource Centre, the book by Grant (which seems to be an illustrated history, but I haven't got it, so if you suggest otherwise AGF kicks in!), and Seton. The latter I'm slightly concerned about—not only it's age, but you know it was printed directly from Setons own MS—no review, no editing, and IIRC it consists of his—very individual!—view of his own family. If not actually autobiographical, it lacks the independence I think we expect at a FAC-level source. Still, as ever, I am open to being (un)convinced... :)
Grant replaced by Ormrod (2012) p 159. Text altered to reflect new source.
Northumberland Tourist Office replaced by a new source - Pettifer.
Battlefields Resource Centre replaced by a new source - Bradbury.
Seton terminated with prejudice.
Formatting
Done.
  • We are encouraged to archive (and to provide links) for websites used, see WP:LR; it's probably not necessary for something like the ODNB who track their own pages, but the Tourist Office, etc., if they are kept, should certainly be archived.
Only the ONDB is now unarchived. Trying to clarify for myself for what the requirements are, the best I can find is the guideline "Citing Sources": "consider archiving the referenced document when writing the article"; is there anything a bit firmer? If I am reading your comment correctly, you are suggesting that it is acceptable at FAC that some links not be archived, while a requirement that others are; this (like so many things on Wikipedia) is new to me and if there is some clarification as to which is which you could point me to it would help me to avoid future errors.
  • I see some author links, and most not. I assume you chose only to link those with WP articles, but I think consistency is more important, so would suggest all or none. And per WP:REDYES, this can be an encouragement for others to create said article. Up to you which way you go though.
I have been "encouraged" by previous assessors to link authors with articles as a minimum. All author links removed.
  • Another point regarding consistency is the Gbooks links. Although it may at first glance seem helpful to our lord and master—the WP:READER—this opinion from Iridescent offers an alternative—and I think extremely useful—perspective on why not to link to Gbooks, which I admit I find wholly persuasive.
I am not sure as to the action needed here, if any. Are you requiring me to either Google link every book, or none; ie be consistent. Or pointing out your and Iridesent's views for information?
  • You're currently using a mix of surname/first name and surname/initials; select one and stick with it.
I had been told that I should consistently transcribe what it says on the book's title page, but full names now replace initials.
  • 13-digit ISBNs, IIRC, should be in the format 123-4-56789-012-3; see Brown, Geldard etc.
Even if that does not match the title page? Eg Ormrod.
  • The Steel Bonnets published by HarperCollins, not Collins Harvil  :)
Done.
  • Ormrod's ODNB entry can be simply linked to the page rather than the individual section.
  • Prestwich's Edward I is noted as part of the Yale Monarchs series, yet Ormrod's Edward III is not?
Done.
  • Likewise, Sumption's book could be noted as being vol.II in the The Hundred Years War series?
Done.
  • Corvis + Wolfe is (I think) the only work you've listed as being publisher/town/UK. No need for UK, although NY is correct for Rochester.
Sloppy of me. Done.
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-checks
  • 4b: Nicolson, p.19, check.
  • 7: Wyntourn, p.395, check.
  • 12: Ormrod, p,212, check.
  • 13: MacDonald Fraser, p.38, check.
  • 16: Prestwich, p.471, check.
  • 19b: Sumption, p.130, not in source (but is in Nicholson so can be removed with no loss.
Done.
  • 19c: Sumption, p.130, only covers Balliol's earlier arrival; augment with Nicholson p.26.
Done.
  • 19d: Sumption, p.130, source mentions 1319 ("In the third week of July, Douglas was forced to take the step which every Scotch commander since the early days of Edward I's wars had learned to avoid at all costs. He recrossed the Tweed and offered battle to the English army.") but not the size or recruitment of Douglas's army. Try Nicholson, p.29.
Done.
  • 19e: Sumption, p.130, touches on catapults (no mention of trebuchets?); Nicholson provides Crabb's background, pp=26–27—although note Crabb without the e.
Added source equating catapults to trebuchets. "two catapults … [t]his clearly means that they were counterweight trebuchets."
  • 19f: Sumption, p.130, no mention of Seton at all (or his spirited defence), although the ref does back the exhaustion of the garrison.
Seton and his defence removed. (I have found the reference I used for this, which I had removced as being a bit old (19th C) to be reliable but omitted to remove the material it cited. (D'oh!))
  • 19g: Sumption, p.130, Sumption is not as detailed as this, merely stating that "{tq|on 28 June the Warden of the town agreed to surrender in two weeks unless by then he had been relieved...When Berwick failed to surrender on the appointed day, Edward began to hang hostages, beginning with the son of the garrison commander and continuing at a rate of two a day}}"—no mention of Thomas, his father or 11 July.
Further source added.
  • 19h: Sumption, p.130, not in source. If you get rid of the Sumption ref (and the Seton becomes redundant too, as it happens), and add Nicholson p.39 n.2, that's the thing covered.
Done.
  • 19i: Sumption, p.130, check.
  • 19j: Sumption, p.130, destruction of Tweedmouth and Edward's refusal to be distracted, check; the "Douglas entered England on 11 July, the last day of Seton's truce" needs a source. Suggest Nicholson p.29.
Done.
  • 19k: Sumption, p.130, not in source; but covered by the Nicholson (as usual!) that's already there.
Done.
  • 19l: Sumption, p.130, not in source.
Replaced.
  • 19m: Sumption, p.130, check.
  • 19n: Sumption, p.130, re. "On the following day...chosen by Edward III", check. But Duns, and its details are covered by Nicholson, p.36.
Done.
  • 19o: Sumption, p.130, no mention of Falkirk, Stirling Bridge, or marshy ground; Dupplin Moor stands up. (The marshy ground can be sourced to Nicholson p.36 if you want)
The unsourced battles deleted.
  • 19p: Sumption, p.130, The quote is found in Nicholson, p.39, not Sumption.
Sloppy. Apologies. Done, using Hall. Who, on examination is citing good old Nicholson, so replaced with him.
  • 19q: Sumption, p.130, check.
  • 19r: Sumption, p.130, Sumption only described English casualties as "light"; but the figures are covered by the other two refs, so the good lord can be removed here.
Done.
  • 19s: Sumption, p.130, for the general fact of surrender, check; but the detail—Keith, March, witnessing executions "just out of bowshot" and the indentures are not.
Frustratingly I can't find my source for this. Possibly back in the UK. I have added Tuck to cover the indentures and deleted the rest.
  • 20: McKisack, 117, check.
  • 21a: Nicolson, p.21, should be pp.20–21.
Done.
  • 26b: Nicholson, p.23, should be pp.23–24.
Done.
  • 27b: Nicholson, p.24, check.
  • 31: Nicholson, p.26, check.
  • 32: Nicholson, p.27, redundant.
Removed.
  • 34: Nicholson, p.24 n.2, check.
  • 36: Nicholson, pp.26–28, just p.27.
Done.
  • 37: de Brie, p.281, check.
  • 38b: Nicholson, p.28, check.
  • 40a: Nicholson, p.29, check.
  • 52: Nicholson, p.41, source uses the phrase "shown no quarter" rather than "murdered"; suggest "killed" per WP:WTW.
Done.
  • 60 Maurer, p.204, check.
Comment

@FAC coordinators: Although the spot-check might look scary, it looks worse than it is—It's only the Sumption that's been an issue, which is a general history of the period which would be used to back the main themes alongside a specialist source. It's clearly a case of information being removed and a corresponding ref not (re)moved with it, and in many cases, the information is found within other sources already used, which I've dug out. As to the general treatment, with the exception of a couple of queries above, the range of sources is broad, well used, and comprehensive. Nothing of any consequence is missing. The tweaks above—are merely tweaks, and I should emphasise that there were absolutely no copyright violations or close-paraphrasing issues apparent. Best of luck with this Gog the Mild, these are pretty superficial issues, all things considered. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 17:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: What a wonderful review. Many thanks. I shall start working through it. (I am hoping that not having access to my hard copies is not going to hold me up.)
Yes, it was the coverage in Sumption that inspired me to start researching the topic, so I have probably over-relied on it. Anyway, more to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: And, finally, I think that I have finished. See what you think. Apologies for taking so long. I have missed my paper sources and found it frustrating and time consuming tracking things down on the web. On the plus side, I did discover Tuck, who has been useful around the edges. Anyway, thanks for your patience and your helpfulness. Over to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

Greetings Gog. We meet each other again, on this article. I did found some issues (not a lot). Of course I didn't mention them in the article's A-class review.

  • "Balliol's force of some 2,000 men met the Scottish army of 12–15,000 men." --> "Balliol's force of some 2,000 men met the Scottish army of 12,000–15,000 men."
Done.
  • Why are there two the same citations (ref 10) next to each other in the sentence. "until its final re-capture by Richard, Duke of Gloucester, the future Richard III, in 1482."?
To be doubly safe? Fixed.
  • The reign of Philip VI, King of France is wrong his reign didn't start from 1327–1377. He was king in 1328 until his death in 1350. Twenty-seven years earlier than the article says.
Thank you. (For some reason I have attributed Edward III's reign to him.) Fixed.
  • Can Richard III have a reign period too?
No. There is no reference to Richard III in the text, so I feel that allocating a reign to a Duke would confuse a reader.
  • "The walls stretched for 2 mi (3.2 km) and were up to 40 in (3.3 ft; 1.0 m) thick and 22 ft (6.7 m) high, protected by a number of towers, up to 60 ft (18 m) tall." Can you change the "18 m" to "18.2 m"? Also I don't think the "0" in "1.0" is necessary.
I quite agree re the 1.0, changed. The 60 ft is an approximation, so I feel that having the conversion to approximately the same level of accuracy. You are spot on to note that I have been inconsistent, so I have changed the 6.7 m.
  • "Edward arrived at Berwick with the main English army on 9 May, after leaving Queen Philippa at Bamburgh Castle 15 mi (24 km) south of Berwick." Can you change the "24 km" to "24.1 km"?
No. Again, spuriously accurate. (Are we talking centre to centre or wall to wall; by road or in a straight line? It is approximately 15 m, the true distance may be 14.87305 m but a reader doesn't want to know that.)
  • "He positioned the English army on Halidon Hill, a small rise of some 600 ft (180 m), 2 mi (3.2 km) to the north-west of Berwick, which gives an excellent view of the town and the vicinity." 600 ft is 182 m. Also it's not necessary to use two times "(3.2 km)".
See above re 183 m. I am probably being blind, but I can only find "(3.2 km)" once; I would appreciate it if you point out the second mention for me.
  • There is one in the Prelude in the sentence "The walls stretched for 2 mi (3.2 km) and were up to 40 in (3 ft; 1 m) thick and 22 ft (6.7 m) high, protected by a number of towers, up to 60 ft (20 m) tall." and one in the Relief force in the sentence "He positioned the English army on Halidon Hill, a small rise of some 600 ft (180 m), 2 mi (3.2 km) to the north-west of Berwick, which gives an excellent view of the town and the vicinity." CPA-5 (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Thank you. Fixed.
  • "Crossing the Tweed to the west of the English position, the Scottish army reached the town of Duns, 15 mi (24 km) from Berwick, on 18 July. On the following day it approached Halidon Hill from the north-west, ready to give battle on ground chosen by Edward III." same as above the "(24 km)" isn't necessary.
Again, I can't spot the second mention. Could you help my failing eyesight and narrow it down for me? Thanks.
  • First one in the Siege section "Edward arrived at Berwick with the main English army on 9 May, after leaving Queen Philippa at Bamburgh Castle 15 mi (24 km) south of Berwick.". Second one in Relief force section in the sentence "Crossing the Tweed to the west of the English position, the Scottish army reached the town of Duns, 15 mi (24 km) from Berwick, on 18 July." CPA-5 (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And double D'oh! Done.

Again, this looks nice. I hope my (second) involment in the article was usefull. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Once again thank you for your eagle eyes. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

edit
  • king of Scotland Capitalize king as it's a title and thus a proper noun.
Both done.
  • a spirited defence but by the end comma after defence
Done.
  • opportunity to fight but this would guartantee missing comma and a typo
Done.
@Sturmvogel 66: And yet again, thank you. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

edit

Most unusually, I have read through this article without making a single note to suggest a change. A fine article, clear, v. readable, well balanced and widely sourced. Happy to support promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 17:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

All image appropriately licenses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JennyOz

edit

Hi Gog the Mild, just a few suggestions...

  • "In Scotland Archibald Douglas was Guardian of the Realm..." links to Douglas (died 1333) but at "Minor raids into Cumberland were mounted by Sir Archibald Douglas", a later Douglas is linked?
Correct. Archibald Douglas was the John Smith of 14th century Scotland.
  • Edward I replace the old - replaced
Done.
  • the English army's supplies.[31] The English army included troops - 2nd "English" can be deleted here?
Done.
  • by sea from Hull - wlink Hull
Done.
  • short truce from King Edward.[36][32] - tweak ref order
Done.
  • along with eleven others.[18][41][40]- tweak ref order
Done.
  • on to the waiting spears.[54][18]- tweak ref order
Done.
  • captions - 15th century depiction v 19th-century view - hyphen consistency
Done.
  • should this article have the Template:Campaignbox Second War of Scottish Independence?
Oops, missed one. It certainly should. I had to check to convince myself that I had really missed it. Thanks for picking that up. Done.
  • sources Brie, Friedrich - out of alpha order
Done. And Hall.
  • sources McKisack, May (I think but not sure that Mc names are sorted alphabetically with Mac names but I can't now find where I read that. Can anybody confirm or contradict?)
I had assumed straight alphabetical listing. Happy to be corrected. I have left as is for now.

An enjoyable read! Thanks Gog, JennyOz (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JennyOz Thanks for the input. A little embarrassing to have so much for you to pick up at this late stage. All points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

edit
  • Edward III used this as a casus belli and invaded Being extremely pedantic, shouldn't that be casus bellum (singular war, rather than plural)?
(butting in) ...err, the "belli" is genitive or dative singular not nominative plural (which would be bella anyway....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beat me to it by seven seconds. :-) Cas Liber has explained it more elegantly and eruditely than I had.
I stand corrected on this one! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately for the Scots, he died "unfortunately" is editorialising
Reworded.
  • "gateway from Scotland to the English eastern march" Do you need the quote marks there? It seems like a standard English phrase, and as it is the quote is unattributed.
Umm. It looks referenced to me. Cite 8?
Apolgies, I should have been clearer. When you have a quote in the prose, you need to note in the prose who you're quoting (eg Wikipedian Harry Mitchell described it as "excellent work", not just the article was "excellent work"). See MOS:QUOTE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Quote marks removed.
  • Same issue with "the first town in the British Isles to be bombarded by cannon"
Cite 37? Nicholson? I am looking at it right now. Or have gone mad, always a possibility.
Tweaked.
  • Suggest turning abbreviations off (using |abbr=off) in the conversion template in the prose.
Done.
  • "as thick as motes in a sun beam" Who is this quoting?
Apologies. Nicholson, cited 6 words too late. Now repeated after the quote.
Tweaked.
  • English casualties were reported as 14, with some chronicles giving a lower figure of 7 per WP:NUMERAL, I believe it's preferable to spell out "fourteen" and "seven"; also, connecting two phrases using ", with" is sub-optimal
Numbers spelt out. What construction would be more optimal? Delete "with" and use 'give'? (If it is, then done.)
  • "remained a bone of contention throughout the Middle Ages" Who are we quoting again?
Apologies again. Once more the cite had drifted to the end of the sentence. Now duplicated.
Tweaked.

Excellent work in general, just a few minor things to address and I fully expect to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry. Thanks for dropping by. Your points above now addressed. I was looking at reviewing your Midland Railway War Memorial when I get the time. Skimming your user page, I hope that you got as far as the Brunswick while you were in town? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replied above on quote attribution. Any thoughts on the MRWM would be very welcome when you get chance. I've never actually been in the Brunswick. I was born in Nottingham and used to live between there and Derby, but whenever I was over that end of Derby it was always to catch a train. I still have family in the area and more scattered around other parts of the Midlands so I try to get up at least once or twice a year. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Sorted. I think. One phrase taken out of quotes; three attributed in text.
Well if you are that way again and fancy an informal introduction to the Brunswick, give me a shout. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I might well take you up on that next time I'm in the area! In the meantime, nice work here. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: For consistency, either all the images should have alt text or none of them should. At the moment, we have a mixture. But that is not worth holding up promotion over. Sarastro (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How careless of me. Alts now added. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2019 (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/Siege_of_Berwick_(1333)/archive1&oldid=879229261"