Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Burnt Candlemas/archive1

Burnt Candlemas

 * Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The 1356 English invasion of Scotland is little discussed. It gets little mention in English sources because it failed. Perhaps not surprisingly when they depended on resupply by 14th-century sailing ships in the dead of winter. And little in the Scottish sources because they provoked it by breaking a truce and weren't proud of their strategy of destroying their own crops, livestock and buildings and then running away. I believe that I have extracted pretty much all there is in the sources and that it is ready for FAC. Doubtless I am as wrong on the latter as I usually am, so have at it.

The name? Read the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Image review

 * I think I've mentioned this previously, but see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_16 regarding the coats of arms
 * You may well have, but not on one of my nominations. Douglas's coat of arms removed.
 * *cough*
 * Gah! I thought that I had already explained my severe premature senility. No? I shall take more medication. And make a BIG note. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * File:Edouard_III_devant_Berwick.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Drat. Apologies. Fixed.
 * Hi Nikkimaria and thank you for your prompt attention. I think that I have addressed your concerns. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Comprehensive support
I reviewed this at GAN, and found little wrong with it, and all of what I saw there was satisfactorily addressed. Hog Farm Talk 00:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Support
Have already made an edit adjusting some punctuation, but found no flaw with the rest of the article. A little polish, and I think it'll be more than worthy of FA. Horsesizedduck (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Support from Girth Summit
Just a few persnickety thoughts about wording and punctuation for consideration:
 * Do we like "50–60-mile-wide"? I'm sure there's nothing technically wrong with it, but all those dashes and hyphens make my eyes a bit itchy. Would rewording to avoid be more elegant?
 * Hyphenophobia? I am sure that a grammatically correct expression can always be rephrased to be more elegant. Better?
 * Yep - now I can read the article without eyedrops or special glasses.


 * "In late October 1355 the Scottish nobles Thomas, Earl of Angus, and Patrick, Earl of March gathered a small force of Scots and French and boats to transport them in." Would the sources allow any expansion on this? Where were they gathered and transported from/to?
 * Sadly not. I was pleasantly surprised to have that much information. The boats, like the Scots, simply appear.
 * Shame - I was sort of wondering where the French came from actually, and why they'd choose to attack by boat - Scottish armies tend to just walk to Berwick when they feel like a scrap, I wondered whether perhaps the men were mustered in France.


 * "In 1357 terms were agreed for the release of David II, they were very similar to those which the Scots had refused in 1354." As worded, these are two independent clauses; I don't think you can get away with a comma there without using a conjunction. It could be a semi-colon, or you could change the second one to a relative clause (...which were very similar to those...). Or just have two sentences.
 * Gone with the latter.
 * Better


 * "David's ransom was the very large sum of 100,000 marks, to be paid over ten years, on 24 June (St. John the Baptist's Day) each year, during which an Anglo-Scottish truce prohibited any Scottish citizen from bearing arms against Edward III or any of his men." As I read this, it's saying that the truce prohibited Scottish citizens from attacking Edward on 24 June each year. Worth rewording slightly?
 * I struggle to misread it like that, but have broken it into two sentences for clarity, at the cost of a little repitition.
 * Better, to my pedantic eye

That's it from me - fascinating article, I'm sure I'll support once the above have been considered. Girth Summit  (blether) 08:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . Many thanks for that. I have, I think, addressed your concerns. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All good - supporting. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

source review - pass

 * Sources are all strongly reliable for what they are citing
 * 1911 Britannica is used, but for noncontroversial description of a custom, so fine there
 * Formatting is good enough in all significant points
 * Trusted nominator, spot checks not done

Not required, but recommend author linking Barrow to G. W. S. Barrow, it looks like Sumption is Jonathan Sumption, Lord Sumption, is Tuck Anthony Tuck, Chris Given-Wilson can be author-linked as well, Prestwich is probably Michael Prestwich, and Warwick Rodwell is probably linkable as well.

Aside from the bevy of optional author links, all is in order here. Hog Farm Talk 16:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, appreciated as ever. Author links all added. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is the fastest I've seen a nomination get three supports and passed image and source reviews in my time being active at FAC. Hog Farm Talk 16:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A bit under four days. Good point, although it is not something I watch for. And I have done nothing to solicit reviews - it must be the catchy title which attracts them. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Cas Liber
Looking now....


 * Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Nothing is jumping out at me prose-wise. Nice read and history lesson for a neophyte like me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Cas and thanks for the review. Much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from WA8MTWAYC
A great article and I support the nom. I haven't found any major issues, although I would personally move some refs such as #17, #18 and #32 to the end of the sentences and reorder refs 25 and 17 ("that he learnt of the fall of Berwick" [25][17]). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi WA8MTWAYC and thanks for the review and the suggestions. Cite order swapped; but cite positions not changed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators
Given the above, can I have a dispensation to nominate another one? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is due to me being a participant and having a biased viewpoint, but I'd say this one's about ready for promotion, based on my reading of the FAC. Hog Farm Talk 19:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, over here! Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it seems to take two pings to rattle my notifications cage these days -- sure go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Support for prose, from Shooterwalker
I'll add another opinion to the lot. Look for a full review from me soon. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * "A few days after agreeing the truce, the Scots, encouraged and subsidised by the French, broke it, invading and devastating Northumberland. " -> "The Scots had agreed to the truce, but broke it a few days later with support and payment from the French, leading the Scots to pillage Northumberland."
 * Any prose, especially mine, can be improved; but I feel this specific suggestion makes it worse. What was the issue with the original?


 * The lead is largely well-written. Great job.
 * Thanks. I often struggle to write good leads. Perhaps because I write them at the end when I have a good grasp on the material and so miss things out of the summary which are "obvious" to me. Good to know that I haven't done that this time.


 * Background
 * "regents of the newly-crowned, 14-year-old King Edward III" -> "regents of the 14-year-old newly-crowned King Edward III" (the comma breaks the readability here)
 * "The Scots felt compelled to attempt to relieve the town" -> this is a little less than clear, but I suppose the sentences that follow give this some clarity.
 * I would be quite happy to expand this. As it is deep background from 23 years before Burnt Candlemas it seemed inappropriate to go into too much detail. But I could cheerfully give as much explanation as you feel a reader needs. (I took Siege of Berwick (1333) to FA; and Battle of Halidon Hill to GA only last week so I may have been over wary of trying to pack everything I knew in.)


 * Scottish invasion
 * Scottish invasion
 * "By 1355 David II was still a prisoner after ransom negotiations had broken down the previous year, but Scottish nobles, encouraged by the French, started gathering an army on the border." -> this could be broken into two less complicated sentences, for better readability
 * I am not sure that reducing all the prose to short snappy improves readability. (As opposed to the reverse.) In this case I would need to try and get "in 1355" into each sentence, which would cause a clunky repetition.


 * Berwick
 * "according to a contemporary "by reason of the discord of the magnates"" -> this subphrase feels a little tacked on, and if you like the quote, it might be integrated in a different way for better flow
 * I really like the way that sentence flows. But if you don't, perhaps you could suggest an alternative?


 * English invasion - advance
 * "Arriving at Edinburgh in early February" -> add a comma here
 * See below.


 * "revictualled" -> I wouldn't write this article just for myself, but this feels like a complicated word where a simpler one would do
 * Good point. Changed to "resupplied".


 * Reading through the prose, the explanation of the etymology of "Burnt Candlemas" seems like it should be further clarified in the lead
 * Done.


 * Retreat
 * "Deprived of sea-borne supplies" -> "Deprived of sea-borne supplies,"
 * See below.


 * "With the English field army gone from Scottish soil" -> "With the English field army gone from Scottish soil,"
 * See below.


 * Aftermath
 * Earlier, you mention that the negotiations around the release of David II had broken down, and here you say that the terms ended up similar to what had been refused before. This makes it sound as though the terms were mainly about money. If that's true, maybe mention that earlier? Or if not, it would be useful to know which terms were difficult, then and in the end.
 * Gah! That is an excellent point, but, basically, we don't know. Some RS's seem more certain, but no two of the same thing. Rogers,, who gives a detailed analysis of the pre-1356 negotiations, summarises "Precisely what this entailed is very difficult to untangle", and that the terms offered by each side varied over time. And no, while the size of the monetary ransom was a sticking point, at various times so were a variety of other issues.


 * Commas
 * It seems that we adhere to different schools of commaisation, both equally valid. Despite how oddly yours reads to me; and no doubt, the reverse. Specifically, among other differences, I do not put a comma after the mention of a time, eg: "Today I ate." not "Today, I ate." and "In 1990 she was born." not "In 1990, she was born.* etc. In the several cases you mention above the "missing" commas are not errors, but adherence to different sets of rules of grammar.


 * Concluding remarks from reviewer
 * Many of these changes are small, though I think they would help the readability and enhance the prose. The article is very close to featured status and I'm looking forward to seeing it get there. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough review, much appreciated. I have, I think, addressed all of your comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the article was already in good shape when I reviewed it. Most of these suggestions are verging on nitpicking, less about errors than about making things more "readable", and I'd agree there is some room for stylistic difference. If you do find the time and the sources, the article might benefit from clarifying that the sticking points were more than just ransom price, and some of the "relief" that the Scots provided to that besieged village. But I'm happy to support the article in its current state, and appreciate you working through all the suggestions. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Shooterwalker: thanks for the support. I would prefer the summary of the 23 -year-old event as it is, but have expanded the areas where negotiations for David's release broke down a little. Which also breaks a sentence as you had suggested. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it helps illustrate the source of the conflict. Thanks for adding! Shooterwalker (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)