Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Babylon Hill

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Babylon Hill

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk)

Battle of Babylon Hill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

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. All comments gratefully received. Harrias talk 08:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • A Parliamentarian army of between 3,500 and 7,000, led by the Earl of Bedford Maybe add the name of the Earl here.
  • culminating in a reported 800 on the night of 5–6 September --> "culminating in a reported 800 on the night of 5/6 September"
  • the first led by Captain Edward Stowell, and the second (Hopton's troop) Link Captain.
  • Stowell rode to meet the challenge, and after Balfour shot his pistol from distance, Stowell held his fire until he was close enough to make the shot, and struck him on the breast before completing the kill with his sword This looks for me more a romance text than an encyclopaedia text. I could be wrong but it looks like that.
  • and in the darkness the entire Royalist detachment was able to make good its retreat For me it looks like it should be used "were" and "their" could be wrong because we're talking about a detachment?
  • Shouldn't note a have a citation?

I think these are anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: All addressed, thanks for your review. Harrias talk 17:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Harrias: In have one comment left. In note b we have no citation It is likely that Morris conflated Balfour with either his father or one of his brothers who also fought in the war. at the end. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support by Gog the Mild

edit
Lead
edit
  • "more muddle than battle" The MoS requires that "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" This is certainly an opinion and so should be attributed in line.
    • It is, but the quotation is attributed inline, in the body of the article: "The historian Richard Brooks described the ensuing fight as "more muddle than battle." If you feel it is absolutely necessary, I can add it here too, but personally I'm not convinced that it is necessary. Harrias talk 21:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's late. I shall return to this.
I remember when I first encountered this, on the other side of the discussion. I was not happy. I made a very similar point to yours. But - the MoS is clear" "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Actually it is clearer: "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" emphasis in the original. I cannot off hand think of any other cases where the MoS emphasises its requirements. So, sorry, remove, paraphrase or attribute as you have in the article; but you can't have a quote which iis an opinion not directly attached to an in line attribution. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, irritatingly, you appear to be right. It's a nasty habit you're developing! Amended accordingly. Harrias talk 17:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The next time you catch me in a complete howler, I shall claim that I did it deliberately in order to make you feel better. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Somerset predominantly favoured the Parliamentarians" It is not clear on first reading that this refers to a geographical area, and not a person. Eg the Duke of Somerset, who is mentioned in the same sentence; yes, I realise that he didn't become Duke for another 40 years, but still. (Or Edward Somerset who raised cavalry for the King (in Wales).)
  • "Somerset predominantly favoured the Parliamentarians, and the Royalist forces which initially mustered at Wells under the Marquees of Hertford were harried out of the county, retreating to Sherborne in northwest Dorset, an area more sympathetic to the Royalist cause." Optional: Rather a lot happening in that long sentence. Consider breaking it.
  • "Hertford's garrison was besieged" Is this the same force as "the Royalist forces which initially mustered at Wells" Is a reader to take it that "retreating to Sherborne" means 'retreating to Sherborne and garrisoning it'.
  • "Besieged" is not synonymous with 'blockaded'. I think that you need to decide which it was.
    • @Gog the Mild: Genuine question, not an argument: Our article Siege states "A siege is a military blockade of a city, or fortress.." The dictionary definition of siege is given as "a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling those inside to surrender", while a blockade is "an act or means of sealing off a place to prevent goods or people from entering or leaving". While I accept that not all blockades are sieges, my own understanding here is that a typical siege is a blockade, making the two terms synonymous in particular cases? Harrias talk 19:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a - genuinely - interesting argument. Proposing that sieges are sub-sets of blockades. I had always understood a siege to be a close investment, while a blockade was a more distant interdiction; but even if that is correct, and I concede that it may not be, it does not entirely rule out your suggestion. I am rather suspicious of the definition of siege you provide above, Eg, see Wiktionary "siege: ... with the intent of conquering by force or attrition"; "blockade: The physical blocking or surrounding of a place, especially a port, in order to prevent commerce and traffic in or out."
Fascinating stuff. You make a very sound argument, which IMO is all that is needed on Wikipedia. I withdraw my objection to your mixing of besieged and blockade. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS Feel entirely free to argue with me. I don't mind, so long as you are polite. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I am always polite. Blunt, but polite. Harrias talk 21:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have only found you to be polite. I look forward to discovering the bluntness.
  • "Hertford's garrison was besieged in early September, but the blockade only lasted four days as the Parliamentarian army suffered significant desertions and withdrew to nearby Yeovil." Was "the Parliamentarian army" the garrison or the besiegers/blockaders?
  • As you may have guessed, I found the second paragraph of the lead a bit confusing.
Much better, thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article
edit
  • "Somerset was generally more sympathetic..." As above. (Person or place.)
  • "their superior cavalry and leadership granted them victory" IMO "granted them victory" is not encyclopedic.
  • "but in the country" "country" in this sense doesn't always travel well. Consider 'in the more rural areas', or similar.
  • "unable to prevent the Parliamentarian bombardment" Optional: "the" → 'a'.
  • "Hopton set his musketeers and dragoons along the approaches to the summit" Delete "his". (Which implies 'all of his'.)
  • This is picky, but lead: "to no effect"; article: "with little effect".
  • "Stowell succeeded in breaking the enemy approach, but his inexperienced cavalry were outnumbered and routed" I don't understand tis. What does "breaking the enemy approach" mean? Colour change to remind me not to overlook it.
    • Okay, so I've read the source back, because frankly, I didn't have a clue what this travesty of a sentence meant. I'm just going to quote the source here, because I am really, really struggling to come up with an alternative which doesn't sound pretty much as awful as my first attempt: "Stawell charged the parliamentarians and initially routed them but his men being untrained and outnumbered was in turn routed" (No offence to the author either, but that text isn't getting through FAC anytime soon...) Put this here as (a) somewhere to summarise the thought and (b) a vain hope that someone else can suggest better wording for the article. Harrias talk 18:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Gog the Mild: Query on this point: would "Stowell's cavalry troop routed the approaching enemy, but they were inexperienced and outnumbered, and themselves routed, ..." be any better? I'm a bit concerned about whether it paraphrases the source a little too closely? Harrias talk 08:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. That reads fine to me. Except it leaves me wanting to know who routed Stowell's force, if they had just routed "the approaching enemy".
2. Maybe 'Stowell's cavalry charge was initially successful, but his inexperienced troopers fell into confusion [or 'became disorganised'] and were routed' or similar would be a tad clearer and avoid close paraphrasing. (And even if its not in the source, can you think of any cavalry charge ever that didn't fall into confusion?) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with your suggested wording is that it suggests that "the approaching enemy" won that phase of the battle, and therefore gained the summit, which doesn't appear to have been the case. While I was going through all the sources, it is pretty clear that everyone has based this on Hopton's description: "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" I've just discovered that the Thomason Tracts, a collection of contemporary pamphlets is on archive.org, so I should hopefully be able to find the Parliamentarian side of the story there to see if that helps. (But it is 932 pages long, and accurate spelling was definitely considered 'optional'. Harrias talk 17:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing that they routed "the Enemy" at which they charged, probably the leading horse, got carried away in pursuit and either ran straight into the following infantry - oops - or were scattered across the field on blown horses and counter-charged by a fresh force. Obviously a bit ORy. If you don't find anything, or despair, how about 'Stowell's charge was initially successful, but his troops were inexperienced and outnumbered and the Parlimentarians routed them'? Or '... drove them off in rout'? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With some new information, I have reworked this quite significantly. Harrias talk 22:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
wiktionary:duel:
1. Arranged, regular combat between two private persons, often over a matter of honor.
2. Historically, the wager of battle (judicial combat)
3. Any struggle between two contending persons, groups or ideas."
It just about sneaks into the third definition, but for me it overwhelmingly brings the first to mind; to a lesser extent the second; marginally the first and last parts of the third; and I really had to strain to realise that you weren't flat wrong. Optional, as technically it is an (barely IMO) allowable usage; but I don't see why we need to put a casual reader through all of that mental effort.
OK. I don't recall ever coming across that phraseology. I assumed it to be a typo. But if you prefer it, fine.
  • "Hopton chose to withdraw his foot again, covering their flight with the cavalry and musketeers" Were the "musketeers" not part of the "foot"? (Or do you mean dragoons?)
    • Well, this is irritating. This is a very good point that I can't currently see an answer to. I have followed the source (Brooks) without really thinking about this. I will need to delve through the other sources to see if any more clarity is provided. I would guess that yes, those musketeers were dragoons: it makes sense given their ability to provide cover and then ride away at speed, but unless I can find it somewhere, that is just speculation. Harrias talk 21:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Morris states that the foot were covered by the horse and dragoons for the initial withdrawal, but for the second only mentions that they were able to retreat in the darkness. Harrias talk 18:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hate it when you can clearly visualise the obvious military manoeuvre, but the source hasn't spelt it out; almost certainly because it is so obvious. Grrr!

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, lots of good points in there. I have done some work on the article, but still need to have a look at a couple of the points in more detail tomorrow. Harrias talk 21:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good. No rush. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few notes here, but none have resolved issues. Delving through the sources to find resolutions to these issues, I've found a few contradictions between the sources that I haven't addressed, and I'm worried that I might have editorialised the article unintentionally. I'm going to have a thorough read between them at some point to see whether it is just a couple of minor points, or if this is endemic across the whole article, in which case I will withdraw this nomination for the moment. Harrias talk 18:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I feel guilty. But I suppose that it will result in a stronger article. And it's what I get paid my munificent reviewer's remuneration for. Good luck. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it wasn't as bad as I worried it might be. I have made a few tweaks and clarifications which have reconciled a few contradictions. Hopefully my changes have mostly resolved your issues with the exception of one that I have responded to above, regarding my awful phrasing. Harrias talk 10:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you have done looks good on a skim. Two comments from me above for you. Once you say that the article is more or less stable I will have another more thorough reread. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I'm happy that this article better balances the sources now, so hopefully it should remain stable now. I've re-written most of the battle description since the initial review, so expecting a whole host of new issues now! ;) Harrias talk 22:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Take 2
edit

I hope that you realise that I shall be invoicing you twice for this review.

That's much better. A nicely flowing read now. However.

  • I am still not a fan of the "successful in routing the approaching enemy" sentence, but I understand your difficulties and this won't stand in the way of my support.
  • The lead: It is relatively long for the size of the article (but acceptably so) and gives two and a half paragraphs to the background and prelude, half a paragraph to the actual battle, and no detail on the aftermath. A lead is required to give casualties. I think that you need to lose virtually all of the second paragraph and add a short concluding one.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"A lead is required to give casualties." Where does it say this? It isn't in the content guide. Harrias talk 13:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh. Good question. And poor phraseology from me. What I was ineptly getting at was that leads should "summarize the most important points" (MOS:LEAD) and that I consider (and I believe that it is more widely considered) that in the leads of military conflicts (skirmishes, battles, sieges, campaigns, wars etc) the outcome and both side's casualties are automatically considered "important". As ever, I am open to being persuaded otherwise. You are of course correct that the MilHist guide does not specifically require casualties, but I would suggest that "What was its outcome or significance" is a hefty nudge in that direction. Specifically, are you content that the lead of this article covers "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" (MOS:INTRO), especially with regards to "What was its outcome or significance"? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. To clarify, I was always going to redo the lead, and Parsecboy's review below has also highlighted this, and given some further guidance. I did not intend to suggest that I shouldn't put the casualties in, but rather that as you had phrased it, it sounded like an MOS/content guide requirement. As I had not seen such a thing, I was worried there might be a whole page somewhere that I had missed. Like I said above, my own phraseology can be blunt at times. Harrias talk 15:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blunt can be good. And it was entirely appropriate. Of course, I only used that misleading phraseology in order to make you feel better when you found me out. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Revised lead

Looks fine to me. Except:

  • "Neither side suffered heavy casualties; although both sides claimed they had killed sixty or more, modern estimates are that the Royalists lost around twenty, and the Parliamentarians five." I would use either a semi colon or a fullstop after "more".

But this is a minor issue and I am happy to support. Fine work.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Parsecboy

edit

You've been generous with reviews, so I ought to repay the favor, eh?

  • The lead section doesn't work for me - it seems odd to have what amounts to a summary of the battle and its background in the 2nd and 3rd paragraph, and then a summary of that in the 1st paragraph. I'd leave the first sentence mostly as is, and then use the rest of the first para to explain the context (another problem with the lead is that it assumes too much on the reader's behalf - where is Sherborne, for instance?) - for instance, you might say "The Battle of Babylon Hill was a skirmish that took place between Royalist and Parliamentarian forces in [southern England, South West England, whatever you want to identify the general location] on 7 September 1642, during the early stages of the First English Civil War. The action came after a failed Parliamentarian siege of a Royalist garrison at Sherborne in Dorset earlier that month. After the Parliamentarians withdrew to nearby Yoevil, the Royalist commander in Sherborne, the Marquees of Hertford, sent a small force under Sir Ralph Hopton to reconnoitre their positions." You could then have what is now the 3rd paragraph moved up to the 2nd paragraph, and then I'd think a new 3rd paragraph should be added that covers the aftermath and significance of the battle. I would probably drop the Brooks quote from the lead, since it's repeated in the body.
  • Sherborne is linked twice in the lead
  • Link Parliament, Somerset, pipe MP to Member of parliament, move the link to cavalry up to its first use, musketeer, rout, Wales, Devon, Cornwall. Parsecboy (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The intro looks much better now, nice work, Harrias! Parsecboy (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • A little surprised at the age of some of the sources, but this is a pretty obscure skirmish, so most likely not much choice.
  • Batten, Junr, John What is this, Junior? I'm more used to seeing it formatted in bibliographies as Batten, John, Jr. Is this some sort of BritEng thing, or more a Victorian thing? I've asked how to format suffixes over at the Cite book template page and will relay the answer I get there.

Thanks Sturmvogel 66, minor query relating to the "Junr" issue. Harrias talk 09:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will be travelling away from home with work this week, and while I hope to get online and resolve remaining issues, I may not be able to get back to this until the end of the week. Harrias talk 18:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Babylon_Hill&oldid=923672068"