Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Halidon Hill/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 August 2021 [1].

Battle of Halidon Hill[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are back in the 14th-century again. Once more the Scots decide to risk an open battle. Once more they get hammered by the English. Even more badly than usual. The English king orders "No prisoners!" and executes those who are taken. One RS is titled War Cruel and Sharp. Indeed. Fresh from a rigorous GAN review from Tayi Arajakate (for which many thanks - perhaps you would care to review this FAC?) I believe that this has a fighting chance of being adjudged up to FA standard. No doubt it has all the usual failings of my nominations, but I am relying on you to flag these up and I appreciate your so doing. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Will do this. Hog Farm Talk 15:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nicholson 1965 is not used
That seems, somehow, to have survived from when I picked up the article in January unweeded. Thanks for picking it up. Removed with prejudice.
  • Maxwell 1913 - shouldn't Maxwell be listed as the translator, since he didn't actually write this ancient source?
He should be. Changed.
Done.
Nope. But he is this one David Dalrymple, Lord Hailes and added.
All added.
  • Are you sure the spelling Wyntourn is corrected? Our article at Andrew of Wyntoun doesn't have the r.
Looks like it's my typo. Amended.

Sources are all reliable; experienced and trusted nominator so spot checks not done. Author-links are optional (I like them because I use them to easily find the reputation of a given cited source when I'm reading articles), but are not necessary criteria components. The only action points are the unused but listed Nicholson source and the queries about Maxwell and Wyntourn. Hog Farm Talk 16:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm, that was even speedier than you usually are. And just as thorough. All addressed I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the spelling in the inline citation and long citation to Wyntoun without the r per above reply; revert me if this is incorrect/unwanted. Hog Farm Talk 19:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. I was sure that I saw that spelling somewhere, but I can't find it and the clear HQ RS consensus is as it now is now. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up the Aftermath map (which would also prevent the caption from wrapping so much). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, how's that? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest cropping out the upper portion (Orkney, Shetland and a lot of sea) of the map, it pushes the relevant part to the bottom and also makes the section stick out. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tayi Arajakate, good idea, but cropping the top would take out the scale and some other information, but may be the least bad option. I had shrunk the map to avoid it sticking down, but Nikkimaria didn't like it so small. Cropping out the top would also cure this. Unfortunately the crop tool seems to not work on svg files. Any ideas? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it can still be manually cropped but looking at it again, it would remove the longitude degrees as well which is only marked at the top so never mind the suggestion. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

  • I really love your articles, but it is so hard to find any issues! This time, I managed to at least find one:
  • Edward's chosen target was the Scottish border town of Berwick. An Anglo-Scottish border town, – "border town" sounds a bit repetitive. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens: Complaints, complaints, that's all I ever hear. ;-) I find it difficult to proof read my own work, so thanks for picking that up. Tweaked. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jens, is there more to come on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am supporting. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

Another splendidly readable battle page from Gog. Only a handful of cavils from me:

  • commonly known as turpis pax, "the cowards' peace" – my Latin is rusty fifty-something years after O-level, but I don't think turpis means "cowards'": I think "shameful peace" would be more like it.
Mine is even rustier - it never really stuck. Changed.
  • Edward III was aware of the scheme … Edward III was happy – perhaps drop the "III" the second time? There are quite a few more "Edward III"s later that could with advantage be plain "Edward"s.
IIIs culled.
  • "so populous and of such commercial importance that it might rightly be called another Alexandria, whose riches were the sea and the water its walls" – I really can't believe these are the ipsissima verba of a 14th-century bishop. I mean, "of such commercial importance"? Not convincingly medieval phrasing. I'm a great fan of your source, Eric Robson, as a broadcaster, but I wouldn't necessarily class him as a WP:RS as a historian. I find from a swift Google that most books quote the remarks as "a city so populous and of such trade that it might justly be called another Alexandria, whose riches were the sea and the water its walls". And I see from this and this that the quote is not from Bishop Edington but from the Lanercost Chronicle.
I consider "of such commercial importance" to be a superior translation into contemporary English to "of such trade". However, you are correct that every other source I can find ascribes it to the Lanercost, so thank you for picking that up. I have clearly been reading straight past it. Changed the wording and the source. (To a slightly more recent one than your suggestions.)
p.s. - don't forget to change "Bishop Edington" to the "Lanacost Chronicle" in the text.
I thought that I had! I have now. Thank you Tim. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley talk 22:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • However, whatever concerns Edward – two "evers" in a row. You could do without the "However", I think.
True, a little sloppy of me.
  • The Scots did not have the time … The Scots devastated the countryside _ perhaps just "they" the second time?
Done.
  • an English defeat would likely be a disaster – curious Americanism where BrE usage would be "an English defeat would probably be a disaster"
I have been reviewing too many USEng artilces. Terminated with prejudice.
  • how vulnerable the Scots were to English longbows, so they came through the marshy hollow – in my book, "so" is not a regarded as a conjunction in formal prose: "and so" would be better, I think.
Done.
  • Of the 9 most-senior Scots present … 6 were killed … only 5 survived … a lower figure of 7 – we usually give numbers below 10 as words rather than figures.
I am used to giving casualties in figures. Changed in the first instance, but not in the second, so as to avoid "of 203 men-at-arms made knights – "dubbed" – immediately before the battle, only five survived

That's all I can come up with by way of quibbles. – Tim riley talk 11:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim for picking up several of my idiocies. That was very thorough of you. All of your comments are now addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy to add my support. I always enjoy Gog's battle articles – military history can be dry for the lay reader, but Gog gives us vivid, page-turning stuff. Beautifully and helpfully illustrated, thoroughly detailed (but not too much so), balanced, and widely sourced. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 13:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queries Support from WereSpielChequers[edit]

Very readable, I've made a couple of tweaks hopefully they are of use.

They are, thank you.
  • A map showing Berwick, Tweedmouth, Roxburghshire and the various possible crossings of the Tweed would be very useful. I appreciate we may not have all the details, but the relative positions of the armies, each I think on the other side of the border, and the routes they could follow would benefit from a map.
Done. To the best of my mapmaking skills.
Thanks, much appreciated. I suspect we don't know much of the detailed dispositions, routes and possible crossing points.
  • Also the map of Scotland and the environs could do with showing Orkney and Shetland as then Norwegian and whether the bit of Ireland shown was then under English control.
Orkney and Shetland are labelled "(Norway)". I would disagree as to Ulster being under English "control" in 1333 - and one could debate the definition of "control" to death. In any event, I don't see that it is relevant to this article.
Thanks, must check my glasses, I wasn't sure about that part of Ireland, but didn't the Isle of Man go from Scottish control to English that year?
  • Douglas seems to have spent the time assembling ever more troops, rather than using those he already had to mount diversionary raids. This inactivity contrasts with Robert Bruce's swift response to the English siege of Berwick in 1319.[27][33] Douglas launched minor raids into Cumberland, which were insufficient to draw the English forces from the siege but gave Edward a pretext for his invasion.[34]
Ah, thank you. I seem to have copy edited the meaning out of that. Changed to "The Scots launched minor raids into Cumberland, which achieved little. Douglas assembled ever more troops, rather than using those he already had to attempt to draw the English away from Berwick." Better?
Yes, much better thanks.
  • I'm not sure how the raids into Cumberland were usable as a pretext for an invasion which already included a siege of Berwick, nor do I get whether the minor raids into Cumberland were a late development, or whether rather than using those he already had to mount diversionary raids, apart from a few minor raids into Cumberland might not make more sense.
Rewritten. The sources don't explicitly say this, but back in 1333 I suspect that an English invasion followed by Scottish raids could readily be presented as the reverse. Sources of reliable information were non-existent. (I was going to say "few", but I think that would be overstating things.)
Thanks, that works for me.
  • the water supply cut sieges rarely last long without water, but British towns and castles of this era often had wells. Was this perhaps the main water supply cut, or even the chance of supply by water being cut by English ships blockading by sea and troops preventing boats travelling down the Tweed from the Scottish parts of its catchment?
Good point. I have overdone the summary style. Unpacked a little to "four underground pipes supplying water to the town were cut"
Thanks, I suspect given the tidal location we are talking fresh and clean over brackish and polluted, but that would be drifting into OR.

ϢereSpielChequers 13:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WereSpielChequers and thanks for the review. Some good points there; all now addressed I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, thanks for an interesting read. ϢereSpielChequers 13:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

Will review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 15:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Balliol's support within Scotland was limited and within six months it had collapsed" - were there specific reasons why it collapsed, or just a general dislike of the Scots for a collaborator with the English
Unpacked a little. See what you think.
  • "A gallows was constructed in sight of the town walls and, as the highest-ranking hostage, Thomas Seton was hanged while his parents watched." - is this still on the 11th?
Yes. Took a bit of digging, but we have a date for the purported relief (12 July) which I have added. The hanging was the next day - the 13th - also added.
  • I think there's a little bit of chronological overlap in the battle description. "More than 500 Scots were killed in this fight, including both of the schiltron's noble commanders, before it too collapsed and the survivors fled" - but then in the next section, this sciltron is said to have not broken yet, and it isn't mentioned to have broken until after the other two are run into the sea. Is it possible to try to make the chronology a little clearer
I have tweaked the wording in both attack and rout to try and smooth the chronology.
  • "English casualties were reported as in some chronicles as 14, while others give a lower figure of 7" - I've read that chronicles about battles from this age sometimes only enumerate the number of knights who became casualties, but not the non-noble foot soldiers. Is it known if this is a figure of knights or a total?
It's the total. You are quite right about casualties among common soldiers often not being mentioned, but in this case the chronicles explicitly include them in their counts. (A phrase from a Scottish chronicle on this battle: "so many nobles were killed that it would be tedious to give all their names"!) If this were not the case I would have so specified.
  • This is an a category about registered historic battlefields - likely worth a mention, especially for WP:CATV's sake.
A very good thought. Added.

Very good work here; anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as ever HF. Your usual set of insightful comments. All addressed above I believe. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering if "The uncultivated scrub and march of 1333" should be marsh instead of march, but comprehensive support otherwise, as I checked sourcing and images as well. Hog Farm Talk 14:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Yes it could. And thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert review.

  • "as Edward was happy to cause trouble for his northern neighbour." cause trouble might be WP:IDIOM, maybe "as Edward wanted to destabalise the rule of his northern neighbour."?
I don't see that this is an idiom. It is, in the words of WP:IDIOM a "direct, literal expression".
  • " but turned a blind eye to his forces sailing" blind eye is an idiom, perhaps "but did not interfere with his forces when they sailed..."
Changed.
  • "He had prepared for Balliol and Beaumont, but he died ten days before they sailed." Delete the second he
Done.
  • "Almost immediately, Balliol granted Edward Scottish estates to a value of £2,000," add a Template:Inflation for the amount?
Done.
  • "According to a contemporary chronicle," to prevent MOS:EASTEREGG, maybe "According to The Lanercost Chronicle, a contemporary account of north English history,"
I don't see that this is an Easter egg. It does not "require the reader to open [it] before understanding what's going on". There is a link to "a contemporary chronicle", a reader clicks on it and finds details of a contemporary chronicle.
A reader has to click on the link to discover that this information came from the Lanercost Chronicle. Why not name the chronicle in the article, as is done in another place in the article? Z1720 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because it breaks the flow of the prose (IMO) by going off into an explanation of the source and will mean nothing to virtually all readers. Explaining that level of detail is just what Wikilinks are for.
  • "Douglas was now faced with a difficult situation, but felt obliged to come to the relief of Berwick." Not sure if the first half of this sentence is NPOV, as it puts an opinion in wikivoice. I don't think it's needed and the sentence can start with "Douglas felt obliged to come to the relief of Berwick."
Rephrased.
  • "The Scots were challenged to do their worst." I think do their worst is an idiom, so reword? Maybe a direct quote of their response would be more appropriate.
Rephrased.
  • "Whatever concerns Edward had for his queen," I don't think this is needed as it doesn't really provide information to the reader.
Removed.
  • "They devastated the countryside but Edward ignored this too." comma after countryside?
Not in my school of commaisation. But feel free to try and persuade me why it is needed.
When I read it in my head, I place a pause there and therefore think a comma is necessary. Others might read it differently, which is why I put a question mark for this comment.
I assumed so, and accept that commas after buts are common. I find it almost impossible to say it in my head with a pause and when I say it out loud with a pause it sounds as if I have a speech defect. My understanding is that, like serial commas, either approach is acceptable so long as it is applied consistently. Hence I grudging restrain myself when I come across ", but" when reviewing. (But usually not when copy editing.)
  • "He positioned the English army on Halidon Hill, a small rise of some 600 feet (180 metres), 2 miles (3.2 km) to the north-west of Berwick, which gives an excellent view of the town and the vicinity." -> which gave an excellent view, as this keeps the sentence in past-tense.
I don't want it in the past tense. That would imply that the view has changed, which it hasn't.
  • "Douglas gave a fire-eating speech" What is a fire-eating speech? Please wikilink or explain in the article.
Changed.
  • "One Scottish account says that of 203 men-at-arms made knights – "dubbed" – immediately before the battle, only 5 survived." I think the dashes should be replaced with brackets, as it reads weird to me, but I might be wrong)
Done. (Although it now reads a little oddly to me.)
Although the brackets are an improvement imo, I think rearranging might be even better, like "One Scottish account says that 203 men-at-arms were made knights immediately before the battle in a process called dubbing; only 5 survived."
Nope. Then you distract the reader by trying to sneak a complicated explanation into a sentence mostly about something else.
  • There's an image of a monument to the battle in the "Scottish rout" section, but no mention of this monument in the "Battlefield today" section. Is there any information on monuments or displays erected to commemorate this event?
Very good point. Done.
  • The ISBN of "Brie, Friedrich (1960)" is located in the OCLC. The ISSN number of "Nicholson, Ranald (1961)" is in the OCLC. I am able to access it by clicking on the OCLC number in the article, which brings me to their World Cat page. These should be added.
Why?
This inclusion or non-inclusion will not factor into my support. However, per WP:CITEVAR, reference style should be consistent. I interpret this to mean that all the citations should have the same parameters defined, if available. Most of the citations with an ISBN and ISSN have those included, the two highlighted above should also have them included. Z1720 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have consistently used ISBNs when they were allocated to a book when it was published and OCLCs when ISBNs weren't. This, obviously, mostly applies to pre-1967 works. This is a fairly common approach. WP:INDICATEAVAIL says "providing an ISBN or OCLC number", which seems to allow for this.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Z1720, lots of good stuff there; I do like your reviews. Your comments all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, likewise. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been addressed, so I can support. Z1720 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Z1720, appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

@Ian Rose @FAC coordinators: Five supports - four from non-MilHist editors - source and image review passes and it has been up for 11 days. Can I fire up another one? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, missed this -- academic now... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2021 (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_Halidon_Hill/archive1&oldid=1041338591"