Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Alton

Battle of Alton

Hello. I just started Battle of Alton and I'd like to bring it to FA status eventually. I'm not used to writing articles on military history, so any help would be greatly appreciated. I think the weakest area is the lack of illustration: I'm currently waiting on the possible relicensing of some great maps of the area, but the owner seems reluctant. Also, any suggestions as to additional sources would be welcomed.-- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to go through and look at your wikilinks. I've fixed one or two but you need to check each one before you go for FA for disambiguation. For example, one I didn't have time to fix is drakes, which you intend as light artillery pieces but leads to an American bakery.Monstrelet (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. I just reviewed every link in the article. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Just a few minor points from me:

• OCLC numbers might be added to the works in the Bibliography that are too old for ISBNs, they can be found by searching at [1];

Done.

• some of the citations are to pretty broad page ranges, I think at FAC they might ask you to be more specific with the pages from where the information came;

I've improved that a bit.

• some of the citation numbers are not listed consecutively, for instance in the Battle section, "...scaffolding inside the church proper.[6][5]" I think at FAC they link the citations to appear consecutively, e.g. [5][6];

Done.

• in the prose you have "500+" and "100+", I think you should replace these with prose. For instance you might say "More than 500 men were captured..." and "...in addition to the estimated 100 men of Boles' force that were killed...";

Done.

• if it hasn't already been through a copy edit, I suggest having this done prior to nominating it for FA status. There no major glaring issues that I can see, but it always pays to have it done in the long run. The Guild of Copy Editors accept requests, I believe. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the review! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Cryptic C62

Resolved issues

"Parliamentary forces under Sir William Waller" Though I realize that this may be a common phrasing for military history articles, I would want to see either "serving under" or "under the command of" to make it clear that this refers to the chain of command. Done. "on a winter garrison" What is a winter garrison? How is this any different from pre-existing garrison that happens to be serving in the winter? It's not really, except it's less active because of bad weather, (I think). "At dawn on the 13th, Lord Waller approached," Approached what? Also, was it just Lord Waller who approached, or was it also his army? Done. "In the church, Boles was killed along with most of his remaining men." According to the lead, Boles had only the infantry under his command. According to the infobox, the infantry numbered 600, 500 of which were captured. How, then, is it possible that "most of his remaining men" were killed? "Remaining" means remaining at the last stand in the church, not remaining after the cavalry fled. Boles was in charge only of the infantry, so the infantry weren't his remaining men. "Stories boast of Boles, who is said to have killed as many as seven men before falling" This claim doesn't seem compatible with the infobox, which claims that the Parliamentarians lost approximately 10 men in the battle. How can it be that Boles alone killed 7 enemies while the rest of his 600-man army managed to only kill 3? That's what the sources say. Still, I tried to word those statements as conservatively as possible. Some say he only killed 2 or 3, but modern histories, and good ones, seem to have no problem with the number 7. At the same time, I've seen assertions that the Parliamentarians lost no more than "8 or 9", while others than give figures around 10 (perhaps 20 at the most). "Sir Ralph Hopton's first decisive defeat" Who is this? I don't say who Waller is either. Both are obviously commanders of Royalist and Parliamentarian armies, and they're wikilinked names. I don't think there's room to do a good job describing their position, nor is it necessary. "Parliamentary forces serving under Sir William Waller lead a successful surprise attack on a winter garrison of Royalist infantry and cavalry serving under Ludovich Lindsay," It is obvious who these people are because it is stated explicitly. It is obvious who Boles is because his role is als o stated explicitly. All of a sudden the battle is now associated with Ralph Hopton because...? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC) You are correct. Now it's fixed. "by the Red Regiment from Westminster and the Green and Yellow Regiments (from London)." I don't understand why one of the locations is in the body of the sentence but the other is parenthetical. Fixed. "In late September, King Charles gave Ralph Hopton 1580 horse, but only around 2000 conscripted infantry and 500 troops recently returned from Munster," I don't understand why he is said to have had "only" 2000 infantry when this number is clearly larger than the 1580 horse. I would think that "along with" or "as well as" would be a better choice than "but only". Cavalry are better and more expensive than infantry, and the best proportion has significantly more of the latter than the former. "the Parliament of England ordered major-general William Waller to muster for the defence of Hampshire" "muster" is generally used as a transitive verb. When used intransitively, it refers to a group gathering together, not to one person. From the OED: "muster v.: 2b trans. To collect or assemble (esp. soldiers) to be counted, inspected as to condition and equipment, exercised, displayed, enlisted into service, or sent into battle. Also intr.: to call a muster." "muster n.: 2a Chiefly Mil. An act of calling together soldiers, sailors, prisoners, etc.; an assembling of people for inspection, exercises, etc., or an act of counting or enlisting people into (esp. armed) service; a roll-call..." I stand corrected. Still, I think the more common phrasing would be "Waller to muster his forces for the defence of Hampshire" or some variant thereof. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Yes. "had at his disposal one cavalry and one infantry regiment" This is somewhat misleading, as it may be interpreted as meaning one infantry regiment and one individual unit of cavalry. Fixed. "They reached west Alton" If "west Alton" is its own region, the "west" should be capitalized. Otherwise, this should read "They reached the western side of Alton" or some such. Fixed. "A regiment of Waller's infantry plus five companies of Haslerig's and five companies of Kentish Men" I'm not a fan of the informal use of "plus". How about a list: "One regiment of Waller's infantry, five companies of Haslerig's, and five companies of Kentish Men" Good suggestion. "The Green Auxillaries flanked the Royalists" This is the first and only instance of "Green Auxillaries". Is this the same as the previously mentioned Green Regiment, or perhaps some subset thereof? Fixed. "marching through town under the cover of smoke from a thatch house which they had set on fire." It is not clear from the structure of the sentence who this clause refers to: the Green Auxillaries or the Royalists. Fixed. "Eventually, the Parliamentarians caused the Royalists to abandon the south-east part of the wall around the church." "caused" is a bland and ambiguous verb. How about "forced"? Fine. "... so entry was soon managed." Awkward and somewhat ambiguous. How about something like "so the Parliamentarians were quickly able to breach them." Fixed. Quotation: "I am certainly informed there were not above fifteen pieces found in the pocket of Colonel Bolles, who, until he fell himself, did bravely encourage and lead on his soldiers." Is the typo "Bolles" an error in your transcription or is that how it was originally written? If the latter, I suggest adding [sic] afterwards. All of the quotations have weird spelling: they're from a million years ago. I can't add [sic] after every abnormality. Also, the inconsistent spelling of "Boles" is mentioned in a footnote. "Boles did not give up, and he killed a number of enemies before being killed himself." The lead provides more detail than this sentence, which is not desirable. WP:LEAD demands that the lead be a summary of information that is included in the body of the text, not a place to introduce more detailed material. Fixed. "Waller, on the other hand, lost maybe ten men" The use of "maybe" is somewhat unencyclopedic. How about "as few as" or "about"? Yeah. "after having pleaded with the town for aid," The meaning of "town" is somewhat ambiguous here. Does this mean the townspeople, implying that he rode through the streets asking for aid? Or does this mean the town's leaders, implying that he met with them to ask for aid? He's not in Oxford, so he obviously sent a letter. That's nowhere near obvious for me. Why couldn't he have just hopped on his horse and rode over to Oxford to ask for aid? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Fair point. I've commented out the problematic part. I never liked that line anyway, and it's neither on topic nor important. More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't wait! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are my final comments. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Great. Thanks, again. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You get has:

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

• The notes all need references

Done.

• References should come after punctuation couple in the lede at least that do not.

Done.

• In the background section King Charles should be linked.

Done.

• Whats the difference between the but only around 2000 conscripted infantry and 500 troops ? should they be troops ? if not 16 troops of horse later on should be linked.

The 500 were from Munster. I'm not sure I understand the confusion.

So was there 2,500 infantry? whats the difference between the two. Were the 500 volunteers or something else.

There were 2,500 infantry in total: 2000 were conscripted; 500 had already fought in Ireland.

• There is a mixture of dates both the 3 November and on the 27th used. I would suggest using 3 November and 27 November.

Done.

• Lord Crawford sent a missive to Farnham - whats a missive ?

Pretty much a letter. It's a more general term, however, and more appropriate here.

Its linked to Letter (message)

That's fine.

• The march was quick and quiet, owing to the long frost which improved the roadways. If thats what the source says ok, but it did take 14 hours so the quick part is dubious.

Multiple sources say the frost made the march quick. They travelled at least 15 miles as the crow flies (because of their detour), and they took a break. That sounds like a reasonable speed to me.

• Some book in the bibliography are missing publishing locations. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

All done! Thanks for the review. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)