Talk:Siege of Berwick (1333)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 00:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I will take this. Comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead
 * link casus belli, many readers may not know what it means
 * Done. Thank you. Sloppy of me.
 * Done again.


 * "Edward and the main...": Edward III (given the two Edwards, I think this will need to be carried through to the rest of the article)
 * Done. I had hoped to avoid this by always referring to Balliol as "Balliol", other than when he is introduced. But you are probably correct, in spite of it reading clunkily.
 * Done again.


 * "as king of Scotland": should the king be capitalised?
 * Not on my reading of MOS:JOBTITLES.

Background
 * "...had been grinding on for over thirty years.": No real context here since it is not mentioned when the war began.
 * Done. Better context. What do you think?
 * Done again.


 * "14-year-old Edward III": probably should add King here since first mention in body of article but then Edward III thereafter. On a separate note, as a style thing, shouldn't the King should be part of the wikilink?
 * A. Done.
 * Done again.


 * "but because this treaty...": the "because" seems out of place here, should it be deleted?
 * Done. (A leftover from an earlier version.)


 * "appealed to King Edward": consistency of style here, Edward III
 * Done.
 * Done again.

Seige
 * "With the arrival of the Edward": delete the from "the Edward"
 * Done.


 * "Alexander's son, Thomas Seton,...": suggest rephrasing: "Seton's son, Thomas,..."
 * Done.
 * Done again.

Relief force
 * "perhaps hoping for a repeat of the events that led in former years to the Battle of Myton." This is a bit vague; what were the events?
 * Done. Context given.
 * Done again.


 * "To save the lives of those who remained Keith,": Any background to him, what qualified him to take over from Seton? Why did he take over?
 * Sorry, no. I can't find anything on that. I assume that it was he had a higher feudal ranking, being a grandson of an Earl Marischal and/or because he had much more military experience, which he did. He did take over command, see bottom of page 92, but why is OR, informed OR, but still...


 * "whatever concerns the King": Edward III
 * Done


 * "by Tuesday 20 July.[14][12]": reorder cites so 12 comes first
 * Done.


 * "English casualties were reported as 14".[16][12]": reorder cites so 12 comes first
 * Done.

Foonotes
 * Note 6 is to a source listed in further reading, not references
 * Done.

References
 * Inconsistent presentation of ISBNs - some have dashes and some don't
 * Done.


 * Strickland and Hardy, first names for these authors?
 * Done.
 * Done again.

Infobox
 * For the Scottish, shouldn't the casualties also include those from Halidon Hill? For the English, since 14 is mentioned in the body of the article, shouldn't that value be there?
 * Not in my opinion. Halidon Hill is a separate event, with its own article. It is included here because the defeat was the direct cause of the siege ending. If I were to include these casualties it would imply that the Scots lost "thousands" during the four month siege - they didn't - and that the English lost 14 - English casualties during the siege were not quantified. Similarly the article on the battle does not include casualties from the siege.

Other stuff
 * Dupe links: David II, Battle of Dupplin Moor
 * Done.
 * Done again.


 * No dab links
 * External links check out OK
 * Images appear to have appropriate licencing tags (not holding myself out as an expert on these mind)

That is my initial comments, may have more once the above have been dealt with. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for picking this up. It is only the second article I have written and so I expect it to be a learning curve for me and, sadly, probably hard work for the assessor.
 * I think that that is everything. As anticipated, very educational. I learnt more from that than from any assessments since my second GAN. I shall use it as the basis of a checklist for future, and current, GANs. Many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sigh; another editor has come along and dropped 14,000+ bytes of material into the article. Some of it is tagged as need cites and for some reason there are lots of 'Scone, Scotland's. That's made a lot more more work for both of us. Zawed (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Plus they made an unilateral and unannounced change of name. Obviously the fact that I had created the page a week before was not a reason why "someone could reasonably disagree with the move". I came close to reverting it and so forcing them to open a proper page move discussion, but decided that might seem confrontational. My mood was not helped by the fact that the change happened while I was working through your GAN comments list, so when I came to save the page was gone and near 2 hours work was wasted. Plus I got a message from you telling me that you had failed the nomination. It took me several hours to realise that you hadn't. I have had 24 hours away for a very slow count to 10. I think it best if I avoid interactions with this editor, at least for a while or I may be a little too "free and frank". I am inclined to leave it for a few days, for me to calm down and, I hope, the article to stabilise. Is that ok with you? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that failed nomination must have been automatically done as a consequence of the article move. It is frustrating when additions to an article disrupts a review, and it has happened to me once or twice as I've put articles through the GA or A-class process, but is one of the drawbacks of editing on a website anyone can edit. These are good faith edits though, and look to be based on a useful source (defer to your expertise on this). Furthermore, the editor has tidied them up a bit from when they were first added. Some of the new material is a little too tangential for my liking (e.g. I don't think it is necessary to mention where Balliol got crowned) so could be trimmed down. Take some time out an come back to it in a few days. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have had another go at addressing your concerns above. I think that I have picked them all up. I have also had a first cut at integrating the new material. There is quite a bit of useful stuff. I have also tried to trim stuff which you might find "tangential". I would suggest leaving things for a couple of days to ensure that it's stable and to give me a chance to go through the fine detail a couple more times. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have had a final run through and it is as ready as I am likely to get it. I'm not trying to hurry you here, just confirming that I am, finally, finished. I am giving thought to nominating this for ACR, so would value your opinion on that. Plus your giving it a tougher review than you might for a 'mere' GAN. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to harass you, and feel free to assess this in your own time, but as it has been 10 days since I pinged you, I thought that it would be ok to give you a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder, I've been a little sidetracked with other projects and now real world life is creeping up on me. I will try and look at this over the weekend. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Further comments
 * Prelude: "...and retaken by treachery in 1318, the last Scottish stronghold to be retaken from the English." Retaken is used twice in short succession, see if it could be rephrased to avoid this repetition.
 * Rephrased.


 * Prelude: for sake of flow, I think the sentence beginning "Berwick was a prosperous town; ..." should be moved to follow "...to the English eastern march".[11]" That then leads into the warfare context for Berwick. At the moment, it feels like it is out of place where it is.
 * Good point. Done.


 * Siege: "...Robert Bruce's swift response to the siege of 1319." Should that be Robert the Bruce's swift... and 1318, as per the prelude section? If so maybe mention Bruce in the prelude, e.g. "and retaken by Robert the Bruce by treachery in 1318,..." If not, does it really need to be here?
 * "Bruce": that's me looking at different sources which translate the Latin differently. Now consistent. "1318": no. Bruce took Berwick in 1318. Edward I counter-sieged in 1319 (part of the: "a succession of raids, sieges and takeovers") and Bruce's "swift response" foiled him. Well summarised here (apart from the extended quote) if you're interested.
 * I feel that the reference to the 1319 siege is out of place here; it requires the reader to have knowledge of the event. This is the last sticking point for me, otherwise looking good for GA. Zawed (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I was unsure whether to remove it, or expand it. As I tend to be told that I give too little context in articles and as a couple of sources feel that it was important in Douglas's decision making I have expanded it. I may be losing focus. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Generally looks good, I made a change to the first couple of sentences of the background section (please check the references still hold true), plus a few minor changes here and there. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Changes are all good. Thanks.


 * Anything else? PS I now have my checklist; anything obvious missing? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed your changes, I think this is looking well up to scratch - good work! Passing as GA. RE your checklist, I suggest adding an image check. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * D'oh! Thank you. And thanks for the thorough review. Any thoughts as to, given a thorough spring clean by me first, whether it would be worth submitting for ACR. If the answer is "no", don't feel obligated to list the reasons why. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, it is always a pleasure working with you. I certainly think you should take this to ACR, I would be happy to support it there and it would benefit from more eyes. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "it is always a pleasure working with you."? [!] Hmm. I always assume that my rather error strewn articles are hard work for their unfortunate assessors. Nevertheless, thanks again for the very thorough job and for the advice. I shall give it another careful read through and submit it for ACR. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)