Talk:Robert II of Scotland/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 12:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll make a start on your comments tonight. --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Lots of places where the prose needs work
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Some spots where there is too much detail on things not related to Robert and other places where we need more context
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lead: It feels a little long for the size of the article... ideally it'd be at most 4 paragraphs, this is six. Some of the information in the lead that really doesn't need to be there is " (The marriage of princess Marjorie took place in 1315, making Robert's probable birth date early in 1316.)" There are other bits that could be cut.
 * Hopefully fixed
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lead: It feels a little long for the size of the article... ideally it'd be at most 4 paragraphs, this is six. Some of the information in the lead that really doesn't need to be there is " (The marriage of princess Marjorie took place in 1315, making Robert's probable birth date early in 1316.)" There are other bits that could be cut.
 * Hopefully fixed
 * Hopefully fixed


 * Lead: "princess Marjorie" but "Prince David"? Consistency.
 * Fixed


 * Lead: Lots of passive voice - you can usually change constructions like "had made" to "made"...
 * Fixed - I think - in lead but will progress thro' rest


 * Lead "the Steward" but "earl of Moray"??? Consistency
 * Fixed in lead but will fix in rest of article


 * Lead: "1st" should be "first"
 * Fixed


 * Heir: YOu say in the lead that Marjorie definitively died in 1317, but in the body it's stated as "probably" - needs fixing.
 * Fixed


 * Heir: Passive voice - "He had the upbringing of a west-coast noble.." suggest rewording to "Brought up as a west-coast noble..." ... also ... what the heck does that mean? Are west-coast nobles from California and speak valley girl? Needs explaining.
 * Fixed this. Yes, west-coast implied Gaeldom while east-coasters were English speaking. Changed wording to more explicit meaning


 * Heir: You also mention in the lead that Robert was probably born in 1316 - but also state a definitive date of 1316 in the body - as well as listing a 2 March 1316 date in the lead that is totally unsourced... needs fixing.
 * Fixed. Someone had previously changed the date to 2 March 1316 and I reverted it in the lead but I didn't notice the change was also placed in the infobox


 * General note - not a fan of referring to him as "the Steward" - suggest sticking to Robert or Robert Stewart ...
 * Fixed somewhat - will go thro' the article to iron out other uses. Robert was known as Steward in charters but agree it makes the article more difficult to read with different names referring to the same person


 * Renewed war: Need a bit more background here on why the Balliol's were claiming rights to the throne if David II died.
 * '' Wasn't really about Balliol claiming rights to the throne but an attempt to usurp the throne based on his father's legitimate kingship. Well it was about Balliol the younger bringing what he regarded as a valid challenge to the Bruce dynasty, and he was supported in this by some. Robert Bruce had kinda stolen the throne but did so with the backing of the most powerful men in the kingdom and there really wasn't much Balliol the elder could do about it. Put in a paragraph in to give some background.


 * Renewed: either use double quotes around "the disinherited" or single quotes but stick with one style.
 * Fixed


 * Renewed: Why is who held the castle of Kildrummy important but not who held the other castles?
 * Christian Bruce was the sister of Robert I and wife of Andrew Murray who probably turned the war in favour of the Bruces-explained further down. Added that Christian was Robert I's sister


 * Renewed: Need a cite for "Strathbogie came over to the Bruce interest after coming under pressure from 'the disinherited' but was fervently opposed to Randolph." as it's definitely opinion "fervently opposed".
 * The cite given says "vehemently hostile"


 * Renewed: "This antagonism.." the war? or something else? It's a war... calling it an antagonism is kinda strange...
 * Fixed


 * Renewed: "It seems that Strathbogie may have persuaded Robert the Steward to consider submitting to Edward and Balliol—Sir Thomas Gray, in his Scalacronica claimed that he had actually done so—but Robert did relinquish his position as Guardian around this time." I'm confused by this statement ... what does Robert surrendering his position have to do with him submitting?
 * Elaborated


 * Renewed: "Just as Randolph was a favourite of the king, David II mistrusted the Steward with his powerful positions of heir presumptive and Guardian of Scotland." But didn't we just say that Robert had surrendered his position as Guardian??? If he got it back, we need to say when it happened...
 * Above, we have the sentences: Murray was appointed Guardian at Dunfermline during the winter of 1335–6 while he was besieging Cupar Castle in Fife. He died at his castle in Avoch in 1338 and Robert resumed the Guardianship.


 * King David's: "In 1347 he took the important step of ensuring the legitimation of his children by petitioning..." But we've heard nothing at all about his children before .. needs more context.
 * information on the sons added


 * King David's: A lot of information on David and Edward III here but next to nothing about Robert ... Let's remember that this article is about Robert and we need to understand how all this affected Robert ...
 * Although the bit on the children adds to Robert's details, the section on David's captivity is important in describing what was going on (or not going on) for his release and then what David was prepared to do to get his freedom which impacted directly on Robert. Also what Robert did by joining with the French at the moment that it looked as though David was going to be ransomed with no pre-conditions.


 * King David's: "the Council" but "by the Scottish council"? Consistency.
 * Done


 * Consolidation: "or may have been directed against the southern Justiciar, Robert Erskine and the Dunbar earls." the way this is written, it could be read that the southern Justiciarship was held by Erskine AND the Dunbar earls...
 * Done


 * Consolidation: "It was resolved by Robert giving his daughter Isabella in marriage to Douglas's son, James and with William replacing Erskine as Justicier south of the Forth." It took a bit to realize that the "William" here is also "Douglas" ... keep the way you refer to him consistent to prevent confusion.
 * Done


 * Consolidation: "After Robert's accession, there was no mass cull of David II's favourites and appointees but there were casualties—the brothers, Sir Robert and Sir Thomas Erskine and John Dunbar were to lose their Bruce preferments and lesser personages fled into England." Several things wrong with this ... "mass cull" and "casualties" is a bit too dramatic for an encyclopedia - suggest rewording. Also, the way "the brothers, Sir Robert and Sir Thomas Erskine and John Dunbar were to lose their Bruce preferments" is written it implies that ALL of these men were brothers. Suggest rewording to "John Dunbar and the brothers Sir Robert and Sir Thomas Erskine lost their Bruce preferments" Third - lesser personages??? That's very strange phrasing.
 * fixed, I think!


 * General - Can we have a section detailing all his various children, etc.? I'm lost with mentions such as "Robert II's second surviving son"... we've heard nothing about him losing a child...
 * I created a navbox to give details of all of his children, both legitimate and illegitimate just for this purpose but I should have mentioned that Walter had died. I'll fix that now.


 * Consolidation: "eight of the 15 earldoms" when comparing things you use either all numerals or all words.
 * Done


 * Consolidation: "Robert became King of Scots in 1371..." already got this .. this is redundant.
 * Fixed


 * Consolidation: Give us the details on "succession entailments which defined the manner by which each of his sons could inherit the crown."
 * Done


 * Consolidation: "greatly improved thanks in part to the flourishing wool trade" - a bit informal here .. suggest "greatly improved in part to the flourishing wool trade"
 * Done


 * Consolidation: confusing "and then by the halting of his predecessor's ransom money on the death of Edward III of England." suggest "and by the halting repayment of his predecessor's ransom money on the death of Edward III of England."
 * Done


 * Consolidation: "Robert II—unlike David II whose kingship was predominantly Lothian and therefore lowland based—was to be found following the hunt in many places in the north and west of the kingdom among his Gaelic patricians." Confusing - what does where he went hunting have to do with his kingship being based in the highlands? And "Gaelic patricians"??? Victorian phrasing...
 * Done


 * Consolidation: "Attacks on the English held zones, with the near certain backing of Robert, began in 1373 and accelerated in the years 1375–7 in the period leading up to Edward III's death indicating that a central decision had probably been taken for the escalation of conflict rather than the freebooting actions of the border barons." Wordy, awkward, and confusing. Needs reworking.
 * Done


 * Consolidation: "Seemingly, the Scots were unaware of an Anglo-French truce agreed on 26 January 1384 and conducted an all-out attack on the English zones..." I don't see the connection between these two things...
 * Fixed


 * Consolidation: "Despite this by 26 July the Scots were part of the truce that would expire in October.." what truce and between whom?
 * Preceding sentence: On 2 June 1384, Robert resolved to send Walter Wardlaw, Bishop of Glasgow to the Anglo-French peace talks yet Carrick ignored this and allowed raids into the north of England to take place.


 * Loss: "These complaints aired in the general council together with Robert II's seeming inability to curb his son damaged his standing within the council." Confusing .. who lost standing?
 * Fixed


 * Loss: "...a force of 1200 French soldiers had joined the Scots in a campaign involving Carrick, Douglas and Robert, earl of Fife." Awkward...
 * Fixed?


 * General - you use "entail" a lot but never explain it... it should be explained as it's not a word most readers will understand.
 * Linked 'entail' to the WP definition. It is a legal description originating in 13th century (fee tail and tailzie - Scots Law).  Agree with your point though and will look for a more readily understandable meaning and will substitute.


 * Historiography: Can we have dates for the works of Donaldson and Nicholson?
 * Done


 * Historiography: Same for the other historians mentioned later?
 * Done


 * Historiography: The quote from Froissart needs to not be in italics - we don't italicise quotes.
 * Fixed


 * Historiography: "As far as the Douglas incident is concerned..." be a bit more specific here...
 * Done


 * Fictional protrayls - these are all sourced to the actual novels, but we need secondary sources to show that they've influenced the view of Robert in history. If we don't have secondary sources, the aren't really useful to discuss here.
 * Done. I've left the section in but hidden in case the original editor of this section comes back with more info


 * Captions: Can we expand the captions a bit - to give some context on why they are included for the photographs and to say what the various manuscript illustrations are?
 * Done
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks good... I've been watching along the way and everything looks good to me. Passing now! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Many thanks indeed. --Bill Reid | (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

User:76.115.116.50
Please stop entering erroneous information. The citation describes how the Steward objected to David's release as it threatened his succession. Your edit makes a nonsense of the citation. If you want your edit to stick then get a reference for it&mdash;that's the way it's done. Your edit summary to justify your change is way wide of the mark. Many of the Scottish nobility wanted an English king on the throne of Scotland so they could get their lands restored while others depended on the English in their Scottish enclaves for their livelihoods. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Many Scots wanted an English King? Really? Any evidence to support this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.209.243 (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)