Talk:Battle of Neville's Cross/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 18:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

"The Battle of Neville's Cross took place less than half a mile to the west of Durham, England, on 17 October 1346, within sight of the Cathedral." Typically, battle articles mention the conflict in which they took place within the first paragraph; I think that the Hundred Years' War mention should come after this sentence or the second sentence, somewhere in the first paragraph nonetheless. Auld Alliance should be wikilinked in the lead. "Battle of Neville's Cross from a 15th-century manuscript (BN MS Fr. 2643)." These abbreviations and numbers don't really have a meaning to me, some sort of archiving tool? Most battle articles have the immediate outcome of warfare, and then the resultant, postliminary effects. Maybe here we could add beneath "English victory" something along the lines of "Effective 40-year border truce" or "Imprisonment" of David II" "He appealed to KingDavid II of Scotland to open a northern front." Spacing between King and David "Many had modern weapons and armour supplied by France." Any idea of specific armaments they were provided? "The same morning two Benadictine monks arrived from Durham in an attempt to broker a peace but David II, thinking they were spies, ordered their beheading; the monks escaped in the confusion." These monks were sent by the English army, or were they officially neutral and simply wanted to avoid bloodshed? "...Queen of Scotland St. Margaret was taken..." Comma between Scotland and St.
 * Done. That's my poetic side getting the better of me. Second War of Scottish Independence
 * Done.
 * Done. No real need to attribute, especially not so confusingly.
 * Done. Except for the 40-year truce one. The 40 years truce was a result of the treaty around David II's release "Eleven years after the battle", which ended the Second War of Scottish Independence. I have rewritten further down to clarify. Note that David's capture is already in the infobox under Casualties and losses.
 * Done.
 * No. The source for this says that they were "a great improvement" on the Scots' usual equipment and that the English were "dismayed", but gives no details.
 * They claimed to be neutral and using the negotiations over the protection money to as an introduction to a more general discussion. The Scottish sources insist that they were spying and/or attempting to keep them off guard. As the whole thing is a bit peripheral (I considered deleting it altogether) I decided to just state the facts.
 * Done.

Good article here, just a few concerns. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * All good suggestions. Thanks for the thorough read through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

One or two points, rather than a thorough review Rjccumbria (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"After taking Liddesdale they bypassed Carlisle in exchange for a large indemnity.." As far as I recall from putting together an article on Liddel Strength, the Scots already held Liddesdale, but the English held Liddel Strength (on the Esk at the mouth of the Liddel Water), which David (on the advice of the Douglas lord of Liddesdale, who was one of his retinue) besieged and took after a delay of 3-4 days. A quick check against Sumption and 'Lanercost' doesn't seem to throw up any mention of Liddesdale more generally being taken, and the lord of Liddesdale being in the Scots army would rather support it having been Scottish territory.


 * You are quite correct. My error, my source says "Peel of Liddell", aka Liddell Strength. Article corrected..

"According to Lynda Rollason, the Black Rood, a piece of the True Cross previously belonging to the former Queen of Scotland, St. Margaret was taken from David II and donated to the shrine of St. Cuthbert."

If that statement is non-controversial, you don't really need any attribution beyond the reference; if it is controversial, then the other view(s) on the matter should be noted


 * Fair point. A left over from various editors inputting. Amended.

( To stray off-piste into OR: I couldn't see why it should be controversial, the claim certainly predates LR (see e.g. ) However, checking in the supplementary volume (vol v) to 'Bain' (no date given on title page, but from content of preface published in 1969 or 1970) on the unpreparedness of Carlisle in 1347 (items 802, 803), I fortuitously noted that it records (item 800, page 268) a Treasury memorandum of Jan 7 1346 that on this date the Black-rood of Scotland was taken from the Tower of London and delivered to Walter de Wetewang, keeper of the wardrobe, to be kept by the king's side. So before the battle (the Treasury memo is dated by regnal year, so it isn't a simple Q of the calendar year starting at Lady Day) the English thought they already had the Black Rood of Scotland (! ?) (The previous item (799) in 'Bain' vol v is a memo of April 12 1344 of various relics handed over to a new treasurer by his predecessor; they include a reliquary with some bones of St Margaret of Scotland and 'a silver-gilt cross with a part in the middle of black wood' : it would be OR to take the latter to be (what the English took to be) the Black-rood, but it is a highly tempting conclusion ))


 * Indeed . However, as there are two RS which unequivocally state that it is the Black Rood I am happy to simply go with their view. Given the peripheral nature of this I don't see that we need to go into too much (or any) background. (The sources may have simply made the same leap of logic that you have. But, again, that is OR.)
 * Indeed. I stumbled across the entry in Bain and promptly wished I hadn't, because the Black Rood was starting to look much like the Maltese Falcon. OR being much more fun than WP, I had a look to see what more was known. The notes to an edition of Turgot's Life of St Margaret include a description of the Black Rood by Aelred of Rievaulx (who had been a household official of David I of Scotland and must have seen the thing) which suggests to me (even more OR) that the English were kidding themselves, and you are right to retain the claim. Rjccumbria (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"References" Maxwell's edition of the Chronicle of Lanercost Priory

is accessible on archive.org, and should perhaps be linked directly (instead of via the OCLC reference no), unless there is some stylistic objection


 * No objection. Done.

Rjccumbria (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Very useful input. Thank you. Feel free to nit pick on any other points I may have got wrong, missed or phrased infelicitously. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * One further minor one. Without going all the way with Calvin, who said that you could fill a ship with the 'fragments of the true cross', there are known provenance issues with this class of relic and it is normal to avoid being categoric that any particular fragment is genuine. If you want to avoid wording too obviously casting doubt on the Black Rood, you might want to consider something along the lines of " the Black Rood, a relic previously belonging to the former Queen of Scotland, St. Margaret and venerated as a piece of the True Cross " (Aelred says the authenticity of the Black Rood is proved by the miracles it has worked, but I doubt if that would be a viable way forward on WP ) Rjccumbria (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That is getting perilously close to OR and/or synthesis, given that that is not what my sources say. Nevertheless, it seems a reasonable approach and so I have done it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Anything else from your side? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)