Wikipedia:Peer review/Monmouth Rebellion/archive1

Monmouth Rebellion

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have made a major expansion over the last few days and hope to put it up for GA soon.

Thanks, — Rod ^talk 20:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Some points to reconsider?

1. Lead section: Perhaps this should simply set the stage for the rebellion, rather than retaining the second paragraph summarizing the evolution? Alternatively, try to maximize summary like: "The rebellion ended with the defeat of Monmouth's forces at the Battle of Sedgemoor on 6 July 1685, at forces led by Earl of Feversham and the Duke of Marlborough. Monmouth was executed for treason on 15 July, 1685"

2. "Context" section: Material good, but perhaps rearrange? Rather than bring in Monmouth as early as you do, present at first the material showing how "resentment" and fears of a Catholic king is present. Then bring Monmouth on the stage.

3. On Royalist reaction:

a) What is the evidence for Faversham's limitedness? I'm not denying your source claim here, but I cannot see that that particular charge is highlighted by any action of Faversham. (Was he bungling in battles? Not able to coordinate opposition to Momouth? Not interpreting intelligence correctly, or too late?)

b) Was it ever relevant that he is "highly loyal"? (Was he approached for bribes, or something?)

c) References of "royalist" opposition, in particular Faversham, seem scattered about. I believe that a synthesis that makes it clearer that at first, it was mere local militia that opposed Monmouth, and only gradually better organized troops under Marlborough and Faversham squashed the revolt.

Okay, these were the main points of criticism I had on a very interesting article! Arildnordby (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"King James was soon warned of Monmouth's arrival, having previously received intelligence about the impending plot." This sentence is awkward, because: You immediately thereafter go into detail on how the warning is relayed to King James (the first factoid of your sentence), but ignoring in the following the chronologically earlier intelligence report which is written as the last part. My proposal is rewriting this like: "King James had earlier received intelligence about the impending plot (add reference here on intelligence report!!), and was soon warned of Monmouth's arrival"Arildnordby (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant details: 1. "The Battle of Sedgemoor is often referred to as the last battle fought on English soil, but this depends on the definition of battle, for which there are different interpretations. Other contenders for the title of last English battle include: the Battle of Preston in Lancashire, which was fought on 14 November 1715, during the First Jacobite Rebellion; and the Second Jacobite Rebellion's minor engagement at Clifton Moor, near Penrith in Cumbria, on 18 December 1745. The Battle of Culloden fought on Drumossie Moor to the north east of Inverness on 16 April 1746 was the last battle fought on British soil.[citation needed]" Belongs in Battle of Sedgmoor, not M's rebellion?

2. "(an elderly nephew of Turenne, who had spent some time in English service and later became a Knight of the Garter)" Arildnordby (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

comments from Tim Riley

• General
  • You need to decide whether Royalist/royalist is capitalised or not. At present it varies.
  • WP:OVERLINK – I don't think your readers will find it helpful to have links to such terms as English Army, Holland, customs officer and pitchforks. And there are two many duplicate links.
• Duke of Monmouth
  • The second para opens with "He", which I suggest you change to "Monmouth". The last person mentioned before the "He" was Charles II, so there is ambiguity.
• Context
  • "Earl of Shaftesbury" – I think you need a definite article for the noble earl.
• Plan
  • "William of Orange, had neglected to detain them" – neglected? It isn't clear that he was negligent in not detaining them.
  • "amongst" – a fusty word, and the sense is unchanged if you omit it here
  • The Rye House plot is linked here and in the previous paragraph with a few explanatory words at each mention. The second is surplus to requirements, I think.
  • "Minister, he was" – a stronger stop than a comma needed here
  • "uttering 'seditious' words" – Wikipedia's preferred style is for double quotes rather than single, as here
  • "gaol" – pleasing to see the older form of the word, but you have "jailed" in the previous line, and they don't sit well in such close proximity
  • "Monmouth pawned many of his belongings and jewelry" – two points here: first, do you definitely prefer the American spelling of jewellery? (The OED admits it, but even so…) And secondly, was not the jewellery/jewelry part of his belongings?
• From Lyme Regis to Sedgemoor
  • "pitchforks): one famous" – semicolon, not colon, wanted here, I think.
  • "swords point" – possessive apostrophe needed
  • "With the local militias assistance" – ditto" – whether militia's singular or militias' plural I know not.
  • "attack the city of Bristol" – second wikilink to Bristol in this section. One too many.
  • "the second largest and second most important city after London" – this doesn't say what I think you mean it to say. If Bristol was the second largest city after London, what was the largest? Omit both "second"s and all will be well.
  • "the final outcome of the rebellion may have been very different" – "might", rather than "may", I think. And having piqued our interest you really ought to say in what way the outcome might have been different.
  • "musqueteers" – a spelling new to me. I see from the OED that Walter Scott used this spelling, but I think most of your readers will be expecting "musketeer".
  • "each side, however each side" – stronger stop than comma wanted
  • "a rebellion in Scotland, led by Archibald Campbell, 9th Earl of Argyll" – this repeats information you've already given us; it repeats a wikilink, too.
  • "arrived, however" – comma inadequate here. Moreover this is a very long sentence and would be better split in two, thus "arrived. In the light"
  • "meant that" – the inclusion of these two words makes no sense after "in the light" etc earlier in the sentence.
• Battle of Sedgemoor
  • "with Lord Churchill, later Duke of Marlborough" – it's a bit late to tell us that now, having called him Duke of Marlborough at all previous mentions

That's my lot. I hope these few suggestions are useful. Regards. Tim riley (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for your helpful comments which have helped to improve the article. I must admit it is not the first time my apostrophe abuse, and other grammar aberrations have been picked up by helpful reviewers. I will leave this open for a couple more days in case you or other editors have further comments and then close it and go for GA.— Rod ^talk 19:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yoy're welcome! If you could find the time to look at my own peer review Wikipedia:Peer review/Impalement/archive1, I would be grateful..:-)Arildnordby (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel each of these two distinct claims will benefit from direct inline citation? " The south west of England contained several towns where opposition remained strong. (Add ref!) Fears of a potential Catholic monarch persisted, intensified by the failure of Charles II and his wife, Catherine of Braganza, to produce any children.(Add ref!)Arildnordby (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Duke of Monmouth section: "That marriage produced no surviving children." You repeat that factoid in the next section, where it is of direct relevance. I think it is unnecessary in DoM section. Furthermore, you double link on catherine braganza.Arildnordby (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both (hopefully) dealt with. I will take a look at Impalement when I get a chance - probably tomorrow.— Rod ^talk 20:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Tangential question: Why wasn't Monmouth hanged, drawn and quartered? Too closely related to King, perhaps? (What about others in the Bloody Assizes?) I'm not saying you should add anything on this, but HDQ was, after all, used on Irish and Scots into the 18th century?Arildnordby (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

An interesting question which has sent me back to the books. No trial was needed because parliament had declared him a traitor on 13 June with the Bill of attainder. His family were allowed to keep the estates (& some titles) because he wrote a letter denying his claim to the throne, but I can't find any explanation (or even discussion) about the selection of a particular format for execution - presumably, as you say, it was because of his royal lineage.— Rod ^talk 21:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

According to the HDQ article, some 200 of Monmouth's followers were hdq'ed: "In less than a month over 200 of them were hanged, drawn and quartered.". Now, I do not know if that is correct, but if it is, it does contrast rather starkly with the merciful aspect of DoM's own death? Arildnordby (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

On Bloody Assizes it says less than 300 (with 2 refs) - I may expand that article later.— Rod ^talk 22:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It's just a gory detail after all, but anyhow, the decent historian Macaulay notes that upon reading the lists from judges sent to the Treasury, there were 320 sentenced to be "hanged" (p.225). If you are to expand on the Bloody Assizes article, he has a rather lively account of it, and Jeffrey's behaviour on the pages there. History, MacaulayArildnordby (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Links 53-58 are clustered together. What do any one of them refer to?Arildnordby (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

They all support the claim that "Several historians have speculated that if Monmouth had marched as quickly as possible for Bristol at this point, when it was only protected by the Gloucestershire militia, he would probably have been able to take the city and the final outcome of the rebellion might have been very different. Once Bristol had been taken, more recruits would have been attracted to the Rebellion and a later march on London would have been possible." As it is speculation I've given loads to show that this is a common thought among the authors.— Rod ^talk 14:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps collect them together in a single reference that reads: "For example, see A, B, C..." where A,B,C.. are the references now present?

Comments by Magicpiano

You've made much progress since my brief comment at WT:MILHIST; well done. You're not too far from GA; I do have a few comments, though.

• Churchill was not duke at the time of these events; he should not be referred to as such (except at some point to mention that he received the title later). His title of the time (baron?) should be used. (I've not checked the titles of others like Feversham and Shaftesbury to see if the same issue is the case with them.)
• Feversham is mentioned generically ("Earl of Feversham"), then mentioned by full name ("Louis de Duras, 2nd Earl of Feversham")
• I would make a more than passing reference to the failure of the Scottish rebellion. (One or two sentences outlining relevant events should suffice.)
• I suspect "rhyne" is always going to be clicked on (unless it's really a common word in BritEng); a parenthetical definition ("drainage ditch") should be given.
• Who did the bill of attainder target (was it only Monmouth, or were others included)?
• According to the article on Percy Kirke, there seem to have been "irregularities" (or at least allegations of mistreatment of prisoners) after the rebellion was put down. Can these be characterized? (Since I don't know the history, I'm assuming this is not directly related to the Bloody Assizes.)

--Magic♪piano 15:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments - I hope I've dealt with most of them but I suspect the last one probably does sit with the Bloody Assizes article.— Rod ^talk 15:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You had, at one point, a tiny mention that expected rebellions failed to materialize in certain parts. I think that the "Plan" section could benefit from a paragraph on why and where DoM expected rebellions might flare up (he didn't go to war unless he thought he had "sufficient" potential support?), and that the failing to materialize of such rebellions could be placed in conjunction with your "flagging of morale" part.Arildnordby (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added a sentence of this.— Rod ^talk 11:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"were considered as potential locations for the rebellion" Potential locations for the rebellion?? Is a) "potentially favourable locations for the rebellion" better? or b) "..potential locations in which the rebellion might spread"? or c) "were considered as potential locations for rebellion" better formulations? From what I see (do I misunderstand?), the point here is that these area were places Monmouth did NOT directly intervene in, or have agents at, but where he hoped sympathy would generate local rebellions (that eventually could suppport and stengthen the momentum of his own directed campaigns). Personally, I favour something along c), dropping the "the" in your own sentence.Arildnordby (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help with this. I'm closing the peer review & aiming for GA soon.— Rod ^talk 09:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)