Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Jacobite rising of 1745

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Jacobite rising of 1745
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this has been extensively updated, to include a wide variety of recent sources, plus inclusion of the impact of the 1745 rebellion, both then and now. The article is intended to provide an overview of the campaign rather than the individual battles and why it was both the most successful yet also the last Jacobite rising. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Gog the Mild
I comment here with some reluctance, as I dislike the thought of saying negative things about an article which has a lot going for it and whose nominator has clearly put a large amount of effort in. Nevertheless, it is my view that this article has some issues. I had a discussion regarding some of them with the nominator earlier in the month. A number of my concerns at the time have been addressed and as there have been no comments here for over three months I thought that I would summarise. Please note that this is not a full assessment, merely a pointing out of some of the more salient issues.


 * There are 13 paragraphs which do not end in references.
 * Done


 * All of the "Notes" bar the first state facts which need sourcing.
 * Done


 * No images have alt text.
 * What is that? :)
 * See MOS:ALT. The idea is that the alt tells a visually impaired reader what they would see if they could (see). You add " An example diff.
 * Thanks!


 * The French navy's plans and preparations to launch an invasion in 1745 do not seem to be mentioned.
 * I've left it out because its debatable whether it was ever serious; during 1745 and 1746, Saxe was completing the conquest of the Austrian Netherlands, something of far greater long-term significance to France. Simply capturing ports in Northern Flanders tied up the Royal Navy and French naval resources in early 1746 (ie before Culloden) were totally focused on Anville's expedition to retake Arcadia.
 * If the French didn't take it seriously then this can be mentioned and dismissed in a short sentence or two. The first RS I consulted - (pp. 245-46, which I personally consider a very RS) seems to give it some weight, see here. In which case there is a difference of opinions between RSs, which again needs a brief mention.
 * Ok, let me take a look at the wording. FYI, I'm not doubting Rodgers but the closer you get to someone who's actually in the French navy (eg de Forbin in 1708), the less keen they are on the idea. Alberoni figured out in 1719 you didn't have to actually go anywhere to tie up the RN, but many French statesmen thought 'Oh, its just a few miles over the water' and wrote lots of letters talking about it - so you can find plenty of evidence but its like asking Donald Trump his favourite place to eat in Mexico City. Or similar.


 * Nit picking - the statue in Derby: the furthest point reached was 5 miles south of Derby at Swarkstone Bridge; the caption gives the impression that the statue marks the actual furthest point reached.
 * Changed to 'reached Derby.'


 * Sources: Blaikie and Groves were published too early for ISBNs. They either need OCLCs or "first published" dates.
 * Updated.

If these concerns, or most of them, could be addressed then I would be happy to do a full assessment. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I thought I'd withdrawn this but obviously not :). I appreciate your investment of time, it wasn't my intention to ignore you but let's continue so we don't lose the investment.


 * In principle, people shouldn't be 'reluctant' to say negative things; that's what the review process is for, its how you say them that matters :). TBF, there are a number of A-listed articles I looked at which seem to have been reviewed by the editor's mother and would benefit from a more rigorous approach. Even when I don't agree, it sparks new thinking and vastly improved another article.


 * As mentioned in a previous discussion, I've been given four or five different versions of Wikipedia Sourcing policy. Re 'every paragraph should end in a reference;' I'll do it, no problem but I'm genuinely struggling to understand where this comes from (its not in the list of requirements for B article assessments) but more importantly, the purpose.


 * It's not a measure of whether an article is well-sourced; I've used a wide variety and avoided general histories in favour of specific sources. It's not a measure of whether something is debatable; one of the paras missing a reference is the statement Charles died in 1788. As I said, I'll do it (some of these simply mean moving the wording around) but I'd like to understand why.


 * Let me do these and I'll revert. Thanks!

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Good work. Thank you. I shall put this down for a full assessment as soon as I have the time. Hopefully I should be able to complete that over the next week or so. Note my two comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I note that the article is still being fairly heavily revised. A brief skim suggests that this is improving it, so that is fine. But I don't want to start assessing an article when I may have to do it again a week later because it has changed. While I appreciate that work on an article never truly ceases, could you ping me once you feel that you have done the bulk of the work and I shall then set to. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Its finished, I just need to put in the Alt stuff on the photos.

Robinvp11 (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Start of assessment
I have done some copy editing. I think that it is uncontroversial, but could you check it, and if you are unhappy with anything flag it up here.

Background

 * "The 1688 Glorious Revolution replaced James II and VII with his Protestant daughter Mary II and her husband William III and II." Suggest inserting 'king of England, Scotland and Ireland after "James II and VII" so we know what we are talking about from the start.
 * Amended wording (inserting this makes titles of Mary and William redundant).


 * "a Protestant successor by excluding Catholics from the English and Irish thrones". Link "Catholics".
 * Done

Amended wording; see what you think.
 * "Since neither Mary nor her sister Anne had surviving children, the 1701 Act of Settlement ensured a Protestant successor by excluding Catholics from the English and Irish thrones" These two clauses do not follow. I suspect that you mean 'The 1701 Act of Settlement ensured a Protestant successor by excluding Catholics from the English and Irish thrones. Since neither Mary nor her sister Anne had surviving children, when Anne became the last Stuart monarch in 1702, her heir was...'
 * "the pro-Hanoverian Whigs controlled government for the next 30 years". 'the government'.

Amended wording;
 * "The Spanish-sponsored 1719 Rising in Scotland was judged to have done more damage to the Jacobite cause than otherwise". This needs a cite, or changing to '.. was judged by the Duke of Ormonde to have done more damage...'
 * "British Prime Minister Robert Walpole", 'prime minister'.


 * "an alliance of Tories and pro-war Patriot Whigs", Link "Tories".

Amended wording;
 * "an alliance of Tories and pro-war Patriot Whigs who promptly did a deal to keep their partners out of government." It is not clear (to me) which group did the deal and which was kept out of government.
 * "Cardinal Fleury, Chief Minister from 1726 to 1743". 'chief minister'.


 * "Many French statesmen felt Britain was the chief beneficiary of the 1716 Alliance, but Cardinal Fleury, Chief Minister from 1726 to 1743, viewed Jacobite claims with scepticism.[15] However, by the time he died in January 1743 and Louis XV took control of government, hostilities between the two countries appeared imminent." This doesn't really flow. Consider a rewrite. (Let me know if you think that it does and I'll be more specific.
 * Amended wording;

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC) Robinvp11 (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Post-1715

 * "Episcopalianism became a mark of Scottish Jacobite commitment, with the majority of the Rebellion's leaders and participants coming from this section of society." Which section? The article hasn't discussed any sections. Or are followers of the Church of Scotland intended to constitute a "section" of society? Possibly a different word choice needed?
 * word change
 * , looking good. A few minor things I would pick on, but let's get to the end of the article and I'll try to hoover them all up in one go. Good work, carry on. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Charles in Scotland

 * "Louis notified James and his uncle Philip V of Spain ". Louis' uncle or James'?
 * Amended the wording


 * "Louis cancelled the invasion at the end of March, declared war on Britain in October and focused on campaigns in Europe". I have a RS which states that France declared war in February 1744. Could you check your source?
 * Changed to March from October; Riding and Ward both say end of March, might be OS v NS?


 * "Despite these precautions, the plan was leaked and when a French squadron left Brest on 26 January, the Royal Navy refused to follow." Could you go back to your source, Cruickshanks, reread pages 56-64, especially page 63, and see if you want to revise the last part of this.
 * Amended; I've removed Cruickshanks (its so hard to get hold of a copy and I returned it long ago). Disputes seem to be on whether Norris was there by accident or design, ditto Roquefeuil.


 * "Storms then sank 12 French warships". From the Brest or the Dunkirk squadrons? Did the Dunkirk squadron ever leave port?
 * I've changed the wording; again, its not clear and I don't want to run down too many rabbit holes. One source claims the Dunkirk transports left harbour 'several days before' but I don't believe for a second a group of flat-bottomed ships full of men sat offshore in a gale waiting for Roquefeuil to show up.


 * "The rebellion now gained momentum; in mid-October, the Jacobites received a shipment of French money and weapons along with an envoy, the Marquis d'Eguilles, while the Duke of Cumberland returned to London from Flanders with 12,000 troops." Suggest a nnew sentence from "while the Duke...". This is unconnected to the rest of the sentence, especially the opening clause.
 * I've changed the wording;


 * "to discuss the invasion of England." It seems strange to break the paragraph here.
 * I've changed the wording;

I will pause here to give you a chance to respond to the above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Robinvp11 (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Again some minor queries, but I will again park those for now and crack on with Invasion of England when I find the time. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Invasion of England
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Regardless, without artillery the Jacobites could only take it by an extended siege but it surrendered on 15 November," This sentence seems a little confused. I am not sure what "Regardless" is doing. Why state that "without artillery the Jacobites could only take it by an extended siege" immediately before stating that it fell in less than a week? "Cumberland wanted to execute those responsible when he retook Carlisle in December." seems like an out of chronological add on to me: who was responsible; what had they done; were they axecuted, punished in any way. I appreciate that summary style by definition omits information, but this extended sentence could do with a review.
 * Amended wording (plus expanded on Cumberland in section above)
 * "Here they received the first significant intake of 200-300 English recruits" Suggest 'Here they received the first significant intake of English recruits - 200-300 men' or similar.
 * Amended wording
 * "and despite large crowds, only Manchester provided a significant number of recruits" This implies that the large crowds were in Manchester. Perhaps 'and despite large crowds gathering at many places along their route, only Manchester had provided...'
 * Amended wording
 * "Murray argued they had gone as far as possible and now risked being caught between Cumberland and Wade, each army being twice their size." Wade and his army have been introduced. This is the first mention of Cumberland (barring the leap forward in time reference re Carlisle). Who is he? Where is he? What army does he have? Pick at least two from three.
 * Amended wording
 * "this meant he had lied when claiming otherwise and fatally damaged his relationship with the Scots." Perhaps '... and this revelation fatally damaged...'? I am not happy with "fatally"; 'seriously'?
 * Amended wording to 'irretrievably'; one of the things that is different between then and now was the importance assigned to oaths (six of the seven Bishops in 1688 refused to swear allegiance to William) and a 'gentleman's word' and the impact was very very serious as a result.
 * "and is supported by many modern historians". Suggestion only 'and its wisdom is supported...'?
 * Amended wording
 * "the Council now learned that Scots and Irish regulars" assuming this is written in UK English that should be learnt.
 * Amended wording
 * "The lightly-equipped Jacobite army moved faster than its opponents but that was a disadvantage in actual combat" Why? ANd why does this end in a semi colon? I don't see how the two parts are linked.
 * Amended wording

Road to Culloden

 * "but there were too many other factors to change the outcome." Can this be sourced, or is it OR?
 * Source added (and wording)
 * "Cumberland's troops spent their time in Aberdeen being intensively drilled in countering the Highland tactic of using their initial charge to break the enemy line. When successful, it resulted in..." A natural reading of this is that when Cumberland's troops' training was successful, it resulted in... Which is not what you are trying to convey.
 * Amended wording

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Aftermath

 * "earned him the nickname 'Butcher'" Awarded by a particular group, or known as such by all parties.
 * "After the death of his father James in 1766, Pope Clement XIII refused to recognise him as Charles III, despite the urgings of his brother Henry." Reword; currently it doesn't make sense. In particular it is not clear who "his" and "him" and "his" (again) refer to.
 * amended wording
 * amended wording

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Legacy

 * "The Jacobite Army is often portrayed as largely composed of Gaelic-speaking Highlanders; while predominantly Scottish, it also contained significant numbers of French and Irish regulars, as well as the English Manchester Regiment. Many were Highlanders but some of the most effective units came from the Lowlands, thus making it a Scottish force, not simply Highland." Optional. Would it be possible to reword this so that it flows: Highland; Scottish; English (Manchester Regiment); Irish and French?
 * Amended wording, see what you think.
 * "After 1745, Highlanders were converted into a noble warrior race". Er, no they weren't. You are talking about a perception, and/or self perception, or anything other than them being literally "converted".
 * Amended.
 * "the military aspects of clanship itself had been in decline for many years," Could you be a bit more specific? Is "many years" 5-7, ot 100-150?
 * Amended wording, see what you think.
 * "the study of Scottish history itself virtually disappearing from universities until the 1950s." Would it be possible, and useful, (and sourcable) to change this to 'the study of Scottish history itself virtually disappearing from universities from the post-Rising period until the 1950s.'?
 * To disappear, it would have needed to be first taught, so I've amended the wording.
 * "The creation of a distinctive Scottish literary tradition began as a reaction to Union" Are you seriously arguing that prior to 1706/7 there was no "distinctive Scottish literary tradition"? Scottish literature argues otherwise. Eg "The first surviving major text in Scots literature is John Barbour's Brus (1375)".
 * That's not what I was suggesting but I've amended the wording.
 * "This was continued by Robert Burns". It is not clear to me what the "this" is that "was continued".
 * Amended wording
 * "This allowed Cumberland's nephew George IV to be painted in 1822 wearing Highland dress of his own design." It is not clear to me what the "this" is that "allowed..."
 * Amended wording
 * "It culminated in the Victorian inventions of..." It is not clear to me what the "it" is that "culminated in..."
 * Amended wording
 * " the adoption by a largely Protestant nation of romantic Catholic icons..." I query the use of "romantic". It sounds like editorialising to me, unless you can show that it is the consensus of reliable sources.
 * 'Romantic Catholic icons' is an exact quote from the source but I can live without it.

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

In popular culture

 * "In 1969, an episode of the BBC TV science-fiction series Doctor Who featured the 1745 Rising" If the bar for inclusion in this section is to have featured in a single episode of a TV series 50 years ago then you are going to have a very long list. Get rid of it. Ditto the Gabaldon claim. Likewise the mention of a single song composed in the 1980s in Argentina.
 * "While not strictly related to the '45 Rising" So why mention it?
 * Why is the 1964 film selected for mention, and not, for example the 1923 or 1948 ones?
 * "one collection being the 1960 album". 58 years ago equals popular culture?
 * There is a lot to be said about the '45 in popular culture, but you need to dig out some learned papers on this and give a balanced summary of the RS's views. Not present a rag bag of unsourced items going back over 50 years.
 * TBH, very little of this is mine, so most of it can be removed plus I also feel I've covered a lot of the Legacy in Aftermath.
 * I'm genuinely stuck as to what you consider a Source for these; the Broster plays linked to the BBC website showing it was int he Schedule, the David Niven quote was linked to the newspaper article in which it appears. Ideas?
 * I am not questioning their sources (which seem adequate), I am questioning whether they should be there at all. If you are happy to take them out then I am satisfied. As to what should be in this section, Catriona's comments below seem to me to offer a good starting point. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of Citation needed insertions, which on closer investigation have been done by a Bot.
 * I've removed this and moved references into Legacy section (which includes addition re Catriona's suggestion).

Robinvp11 (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrap up
I have made a few minor copy edits. Could you check that you are happy with them.


 * Also the following need addressing:


 * Lead: "Similar discussions had taken place at Carlisle, Manchester and Preston" Could you put these in chronological order.
 * "they were far from home and outnumbered by three government armies, each larger than their own." "outnumbered" and "each larger than their own" say the same thing. Perhaps replace "outnumbered" with 'confronted' or similar?
 * See what you think; on reflection, it was more to do with having their retreat cut off and I've changed the other statement below to be consistent.
 * Background: " "it bid fair to ruin the King's Interest and faithful subjects in these parts." " Is the upper case I in Interest in the original quote?
 * Yes
 * "an expensive and risky Stuart Restoration" Why the upper case R?
 * A hangover from doing articles on 1660 so I've changed it.
 * Jacobitism in the British Isles: "A high percentage of active participants in the 1715 rising had been Catholic" So they no longer were at the time of the rising? Or do you mean 'were Catholic', in a similar way to "while most Tories were members of the Protestant Church of England" in the same sentence?
 * It took me about 30 minutes to figure out what I meant :) but I think I've got the sense of it. Let me know.
 * Charles in Scotland: "while the British government arrested a number of suspected Jacobites." This half sentence reads very oddly in the middle of a paragraph which is otherwise entirely about a French naval expedition.
 * Reworded
 * Invasion of England: "risked being caught between two armies, each twice their size" Compare with the lead: "and outnumbered by three government armies, each larger than their own" Is it possible that there is an inconsistency regarding the number of government armies?
 * The confusion arises because at Derby, there were two armies relevant to their retreat, ie Cumberland and Wade, but three if they kept going ie Cumberland, Wade plus the one sitting in Finchley. I'm explaining it to myself :) Reworded
 * Road to Culloden: "The Battle of Culloden on 16 April, often cited as the last pitched battle on British soil," Could you provide a cite for this, immediately after the comma.
 * Legacy: "The vernacular style was continued by Robert Burns, others looking back to a more distant past that was both Scottish and Gaelic." This doesn't make sense. It looks as if some words may have gone missing from around the comma.
 * Changed it; it should flow from the previous paragraph
 * Sources: either all need a publisher location, or none do. I suggest removing it from the 2 which do.
 * I agree but I can't find the two - can you tell me? Tx :)
 * Cite 25, Strong; cite 95, Seymour.
 * I agree but I can't find the two - can you tell me? Tx :)
 * Cite 25, Strong; cite 95, Seymour.


 * There are still a number of sources which lack an (available) ISBN/OCLC. Eg Wymess and Sibbold, cite 46.
 * The main one is Taylor's Jacobite Miscellany which was a private publication
 * Articles from journals need ISSNs. Eg Kidd, cite 109.
 * I think I've got most but...
 * Cite 115, Stoka; cite 105 [?]
 * Cite 115, Stoka; cite 105 [?]


 * I can't find one for Sroka and the other is from the online version of the ODNB (ie that's what they've used)
 * I have done them both for you, and removed the last "location". You owe me a beer.

It is looking impressive now. Congratulations on the result of a lot of hard work.
 * Those are all good changes, in a couple of cases, impressively so. See my two responses above and comments below.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been a team effort, not only the reviews but Sveik74 helped by challenging a few of my more obvious misconceptions Robinvp11 (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * At the risk of an accusation of never being satisfied, I agree with Catrìona's point re page numbering: all need a space between p. and the first number; page ranges should be separated by an en dash, not a hyphen; if there is more than one page it should state pp. (not p.).


 * Happy to take the time to get it right but as a relative newcomer, it can be challenging to understand what is 'standard' and what isn't. I don't consider myself particularly slow but Wikipedia policy on Citing and Sources is confusing to say the least. Rant done - my conclusion is I just need to be consistent, so I've changed them as suggested.
 * Until about 7-8 months ago I really struggled with article assessors' expectations of references. I then bit the bullet and switched entirely to Harvard style. It was work putting in the initial effort to change and to learn it, but oh my, it makes this sort of malarkey a thing of the past. (I list my commonly used sources on a seperate user page for easy copying and pasting into articles.)
 * There were a lot of page ranges with hyphens. I have changed them. You definitely owe me a pint for that.
 * As requested :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3MfQIswl3k Robinvp11 (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Similarly, your style for ISBNs needs to be consistent. Either all completely unhyphenated; or all fully hyphenated; or all 978-1234567890.


 * Re authors name formatting: IMO so long as your style matches the title page of (the appropriate edition of) the book in question you should be safe. It is unusual in my experience for a title page to not give at least an author's first name in full. If it doesn't it is not your fault; if it does, you need to be consistent - abbreviate all or none (latter preferred).
 * Re authors name formatting: IMO so long as your style matches the title page of (the appropriate edition of) the book in question you should be safe. It is unusual in my experience for a title page to not give at least an author's first name in full. If it doesn't it is not your fault; if it does, you need to be consistent - abbreviate all or none (latter preferred).


 * I've checked (because it is odd) but for whatever reason, that's how they appear
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you now, IMO, have an article which represents Wikipedia's best, and I am happy to support it for FA.


 * As requested above :) Pint; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3MfQIswl3k

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Hawkeye7

 * What are pensionaries?
 * I've shortened it and taken this out


 * What was the Cornbury conspiracy?
 * I removed this and changed the structure; there's no wikipedia article to link to and it doesn't merit extending the article.


 * it was the last Jacobite rebellion, despite being the most successful The 1745 uprising doesn't seem very successful to me.
 * 'Most successful' is not the same as 'successful' :) but I've reworded this paragraph.


 * "between 1740-1744" "between 1740 and 1744"
 * Done


 * "in England, where the established Church was Episcopalian" No need for a capital C. I'm not sure that the uninformed reader will realise that the "established church" is the Church of England. Or what "Episcopalian" means (link it here instead of down below).
 * Reworded this paragraph to make it tighter (the benefit of someone else looking at it :)).


 * "in Scotland, where the kirk was Calvinist and Presbyterian" "church". This is the Church of Scotland, right?
 * As above.


 * "1707 Acts of Union" Act or Acts?
 * Acts (I've included the link - it covers the English enabling act of 1706 and the Scots of 1707);


 * "See also: Siege of Carlisle (December 1745)" We don't usually put See also in the middle of the text. Hatnotes are placed at the top of article sections according to Layout.
 * done


 * Link David Niven, Dr Who
 * Many unreferenced paragraphs. The Notes also require references.
 * Done, except for the Literary ones (which I didn't add, so finding the references take a few)
 * Hawkeye7  (discuss)  19:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Catrìona

 * This isn't an issue with the A-class criteria, but if you were to take this to WP:GAN, you would need to tweak the layout of images to conform to MOS:IMAGELOC, in particular avoiding "sandwiching"—images on two sides with text in the middle.
 * Charles journeyed to Paris Suggest "traveled to Paris"
 * Done


 * Murray of Broughton Usually, the best practice to introduce people by their full name, ie Sir John Murray of Broughton
 * Done; I've shifted the wording to flow better;


 * Charles gambled once in Scotland "Charles gambled that once he was in Scotland..."
 * Done; changed the last bit slightly.


 * victory at Fontenoy in April wlink this entire phrase so its obvious the link is to a battle, not the place
 * Done; minor re-wording.


 * MacDonald of Boisdale, MacDonald of Sleat it would be more relevant to link the clans, rather than the places, if there is no article on the individuals
 * Enough were eventually persuaded, including the influential Donald Cameron of Lochiel, but the choice was rarely simple. You might expand on how religious loyalties (clans that had converted to Prostantism vs. those that remained Catholic) and pragmatic factors (Gaelic poet Donnchadh Bàn Mac an t-Saoir, for instance, famously supported the Jacobites despite having fought for the Hanoverians) affected Gaelic leaders' siding with or against the rising.
 * The religious question is a long discussion; we can say Catholics mostly supported the Stuarts but the Presbyterian Macleans were out in 1689 and 1715 due to the Campbell acquisition of Mull. I think its covered sufficiently in the previous section (ie the link with Non-Juring Episcopalianism).
 * I don't know enough about the links between Gaelic leaders and Jacobites to comment usefully but if you have some sources to recommend, I'm interested :) In addition, many of Lochiel's tenants were threatened with eviction by Archibald Cameron if they didn't join, which led to his betrayal and execution in 1753. The question of motivation is potentially a big rabbit hole and I wanted to expand on this in the article on Jacobitism.
 * This question has been discussed at considerable length in this JSTOR paper. 5Catrìona (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is something I've looked at when researching the Jacobite Army: establishing motivation can often be particularly difficult due to the context in which it was reported. As an example, one incident usually taken as evidence that some Highlanders were dragged along by force (the recruiting activities of Keppoch in Bunrannoch parish) were recorded partly in the context of trying to prove some participants innocent of rebellion. By contrast, a large number of Keppoch's own regiment argued with him and went home en masse - hardly the actions of tenants living in fear of their landlord. It's complicated, either way. Svejk74 (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * a slur that was to have disastrous results Rephrase: not NPOV. For the Hanoverians, the result was good!
 * Done; I got lazy :)


 * many others stayed on the sidelines as a result
 * Added, thanks.


 * On 17 September, Charles entered Edinburgh unopposed, although the Castle itself remained in government hands and the next day, he proclaimed his father King of Scotland Split: ...although the Castle itself remained in government hands. The next day, he proclaimed his father King of Scotland.
 * Split and expanded slightly; see what you think.


 * Sir John Cope Usually, one wouldn't repeat honorifics or first names, how about "Cope's forces"?
 * Rewritten the sentence, see what you think


 * Marquis d'Eguilles (red)link?
 * I'll do a quick one


 * Scottish incursions into England historically crossed the border at Berwick-upon-Tweed Suggest: Previous Scottish invasions of England had crossed the border at...
 * Rewritten the sentence, see what you think;


 * to maximise the chances of these conditions being met, Murray selected a route through Carlisle and the traditional heartland of Jacobite support in North-West England Either clarify how this is relevant to the potential French support, or cut "to maximise the chances of these conditions being met".
 * Rewritten the sentence, see what you think;

Skipping ahead a bit: Robinvp11 (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Overall, I've checked the campaign box and most of these events are not even mentioned here. Is there a reason for that?
 * This wasn't done by me; I assume you're referring to the detailed box and many of these are minor skirmishes with little bearing on the campaign so I'd remove them but...Thoughts? Robinvp11 (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think your policy of not expanding on the battles works well, except for Culloden. I think it is important enough to devote a paragraph to the tactics/what happened. You should also mention that it is still the last pitched battle to be fought on British soil.
 * Now done Robinvp11 (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The popular culture section should mention Gaelic poetry. The Jacobite risings were the main theme of 18th century Gaelic poetry, and appeared in the work of most of the notable poets William Ross, Rob Donn, and most famously Alasdair mac Mhaighstir Alasdair. This is discussed a bit in the above paper. Also, per WP:MILPOP, make sure that you have a solid secondary source for all of the pop culture references.
 * I read the article by Stewart; thanks for that, it was really interesting. His purpose seems to be proving the validity of Gaelic poetry as a reliable source by discounting 'Forcing Out.' I don't really follow his logic :) but it's useful in other ways and I've included a reference to the article in 'Charles in Scotland.' Let me come up with some wording, which I think belongs in the Legacy segment. I need to internalise the article a bit but I'll let you know when its done and then feel free to amend (always easier to edit, versus create).

Have a look, let me know 12:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

More later. Catrìona (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Robinvp11 (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've read enough in this area to support or oppose based on content/coverage, but I do think that most of my points have been addressed. In particular, there has been a lot of improvement in the Legacy section. However, the citation style is not consistent (see A2); many citations are shortened in a various formats while others are given in full in the footnotes. The easiest and best way (although not required) to get a consistent citation style is to use cite book, cite journal, cite thesis etc. in the Bibliography and use citation templates in text. Catrìona (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding.
 * The issue of different interpretations of style or usage resurfaces time and again in Wikipedia and tbh, I find it immensely frustrating. I'm using the citing templates provided in the editing box and following protocol used in other GAs where the full reference is provided the first time, then shortened thereafter, so I'm not going to change it unless there are specific errors.


 * Let's review; this was kicked off by your response to Švejk's request the content be expanded in certain areas ie This is a complicated and sometimes disputed conflict, and personally I doubt that it can be covered to A-class standards under the current length. Švejk's comments below corroborate my initial assessment.


 * I asked you to tell me where you felt the article needed improvement, which seems a reasonable approach. You invested effort in reviewing and requested extensive expansion in the content; this took me a fair amount of time but I was happy to do it because it improved the article.


 * So I'm struggling to understand how to interpret this sentence eg I don't think I've read enough in this area to support or oppose based on content/coverage. Its inconsistent to ask for changes in the content, have them made, then apparently say you're not qualified to assess the article based on content. What am I supposed to do with that?

Robinvp11 (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I think the article as it stands is excellent.Svejk74 (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that I've done very little reading on the Rising in general, especially the military aspects, and most of what I know about it comes from the perspective of Gaelic society and literature. I'm willing to support on the basis of the issues I raised, which were fixed adequately, but voice no opinion on the other parts of the article.
 * As for the citations, yes that is a valid citation style, but if all sources are identified in the references what is the purpose of the "sources" section? This section is actually incomplete; for instance, several works by Pittock are referenced in the citations but only one is present in the "sources" section. I would recommend just deleting it as duplicative.
 * There are duplicate full references in the citations section. I fixed one of them but just a quick look found that Devine's Clanship to Crofters' War was repeated twice in full, for example. In addition, other inconsistencies/omissions/errors abound; some authors are identified by initials while others by full name; there are frequently no spaces between p. and the page number; many publications are missing OCLC, ISBN, or other identifiers. Perhaps you find this pedantic, but these are things that are regularly required of A-class articles. Catrìona (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

- can you confirm whether Robin has addressed your concerns with the article? This review has been open for quite some time. Parsecboy (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that my comments have been adequately addressed. However, while checking to see whether the footnotes/sources issues had been fixed, I noticed that the Pittock, Murray (2016). ref is duplicated. buidhe 18:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you indicate whether you support promotion (assuming you do)? We need three supports to pass the article, and there are currently two. I've removed the duplicate ref. Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Svejk74
It's been suggested I add comments here rather than on the talk page of the article itself. I still wonder if my points have much applicability as far as the general reader is concerned, but in the interests of keeping everything in one place I'll add them to this discussion.

I do think the article is vastly improved, but there are a couple of areas that I think deserve some expansion:


 * I don't think it's accurate to simply say that English Jacobite support had largely collapsed after 1715 and that, as a political idea, it was largely an expression of Tory frustrations at being out of power. As Monod (Jacobitism and the English People, p.330) put it the failure of the rebellion to attract support "is more complicated" than merely being evidence of "the debility of Jacobitism". While not the party mainstream, there was still a group of more strongly Jacobite Tories who were (as the article actually notes) lobbying for French military support and were horrified by what they saw as a reckless and premature action by Charles. The recusant northern gentry, as Monod also notes, still existed but were deliberately left alone by Charles as he was conscious "they had not recovered from the devastation wrought upon them after 1715". There was also an element of Anglican Jacobite gentry who wished Charles well, but were simply afraid of getting involved; this is in addition to the population of towns like Lichfield. My point, like Monod's, is that there was more to the situation than just stating that Jacobitism was moribund and exaggerated by Stuart agents.


 * Let me come up with some wording - valid point.
 * Done Robinvp11 (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Similarly on reflection, and partly reminded by something I was looking at for the article on Sheridan, I would say that Irish Jacobitism was not entirely about Catholic rights; Sheridan's family were one of a number of Ormondist Tory Protestants. While they might have been a minority element, it does demonstrate that Jacobite support was not homogenous.
 * I agree and the wording does include land rights but let me think about it. A query (simple curiosity) is what you mean by Ormondist Tory Protestants? I just finished re-reading 'Memoirs of a Georgian Rake' by William Hickey, one of many minor Irish gentry, Edmund Burke being another, where the sons became Protestants but the daughters went to convents in France. So which bit is the practice of occasional conformity, versus genuine belief?
 * Well, "Ormondist Tory" is O Ciardha's wording rather than mine, but I took it to mean those elements of the Anglican 'Ascendancy' class (as opposed to the Catholic landowners and Old English) whose families had supported the Stuart interest at the Boyne and Aughrim. You could use the phrase 'High Anglican Stuart Loyalists' as well, I suppose. There were still a few of them around in the 18th century - O Ciardha points out that they mixed little if at all with Catholic Jacobites and mentions one of the Crosbies of Ardfert as an especially active example; interestingly the last Crosbie baronet Sir Edward was executed as a United Irishman.Svejk74 (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks - given the mutation of former Jacobite societies into the United Irishmen, that makes sense. I think there's too much emphasis on religion as a key driver of Irish Jacobite opposition; the issue was its impact on ability to own land and hold government positions. When Rinuccini was appointed Papal Nuncio to Ireland in 1644, he failed to appreciate fundamental differences between Rome and Irish Catholicism, one being hostility to elaborate rituals such as foot washing and greater tolerance for Protestants. De Valera has a lot to answer for.
 * Interestingly (for me :)), when I lived in Thailand 1988-1993, it was common practice for ethnic Chinese Thai to send one of their sons to university in China, very similar to occasional conformity.Robinvp11 (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Svejk74 (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Robinvp11 (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Robinvp11 (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Another observation, on re-reading the article. "Restoring the Stuarts would be of little benefit to France but an ongoing, inexpensive Jacobite insurgency to absorb British resources might, although potentially devastating for the Scots" is now the first mention of the Scots or Scotland in the body of the article. A reader without background knowledge might question why it would be devastating for the Scots particularly, so a sentence or so prior to then to explain the reasons why Scotland had become the centre of Stuart hopes might be helpful.Svejk74 (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * done, see what you think.
 * Looks good to me.Svejk74 (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks; btw, not sure if you've seen it already but the Jean McCann PHD on 'The Organisation of the Jacobite Army' https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/9381 is worth a look. Very detailed on recruitment etc.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

- can you confirm whether Robin has addressed your concerns with the article? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, the specific concerns mentioned above have been addressed.Svejk74 (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you indicate whether you support promotion (assuming you do)? We need three supports to pass the article, and there are currently two. Parsecboy (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day can you advise if you support promotion to A-Class. The criteria are here. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd support. I think the article is of a very high standard overall. Svejk74 (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Samuel Scott 1.jpg needs its license changed to PD-Art-100
 * Remaining images properly licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Robinvp11 (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, the licence change still needs to be done. Swap out the PD-old-100 for PD-Art-100. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I've think I've done this (took me a while to figure out). Re pictures, for my education, what is the accepted norm for sizing? I've been using the 200px etc format which has been changed - that's fine, I just want to understand so I can do it better next time.

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Confirming that the licensing has been fixed. buidhe 18:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Buidhe. In answer to your question,, rather than fix the image size, it's better to use the |upright= parameter. Generally I find a factor of 1.3 is best for landscape format, 1.0 is good for portrait format, but you can vary around that range a bit and no-one usually minds. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi
.Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * these comments have been waiting quite some time. I know it's the holidays and all... but I fear the nom will be Promoted without addressing these issues (or explaining why I am wrong). Will strike Oppose if addressed. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, thanks for being so thorough.
 * Possibly in cites but not in references:
 * Corp, Edward (author), MacInnes, Allan (2014). The Scottish Jacobite Community at St Germain after the departure of the Stuart in Living with Jacobitism, 1690–1788: The Three Kingdoms and Beyond. Routledge. p. 29. ISBN 978-1848934702.
 * Dickson, William Kirk (ed) (1895). The Jacobite Attempt of 1719. Letters of James Butler, Second Duke of Ormonde (2016 ed.). Wentworth Press. ISBN 978-1372658655. Retrieved 18 February 2018.CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list (link) Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs orig-year;
 * but where the Source was published pre-ISBN, I've provided the original publication date and if it has been republished (which is increasingly common), I've provided the edition I'm using, with the associated ISBN. That makes it a lot easier to track down a copy if interested - so I'm (trying) to be helpful.
 * Elcho in Tayler (1948), p. 207
 * Elcho, "An Extract from the diary of David, Lord Elcho" in Tayler (ed) (1948) A Jacobite Miscellany: Eight Original Papers on the Rising of 1745–6, p.201
 * Only one not republished and hence with ISBN
 * Gooch, Leo (2004). "Towneley, Francis (1709–1746)". doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/27603.
 * Groves Lt-Colonel, Percy (1893). History Of The 42nd Royal Highlanders: The Black Watch, Now The First Battalion The Black Watch (Royal Highlanders) 1729–1893 (2017 ed.). W. & A. K. Johnston. pp. 3–4. ISBN 978-1376269482. Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs orig-year;
 * but see above (where the Source was published pre-ISBN etc);
 * Lord, Evelyn (2004). The Stuarts' Secret Army: English Jacobites, 1689–1752. Pearson. pp. 131–136. ISBN 978-0582772564.
 * McLynn, Frank (October 1980). "An Eighteenth-Century Scots Republic? An Unlikely Project from Absolutist France". The Scottish Historical Review. 59 (168): 177–181. JSTOR 25529380. Retrieved 18 December 2018. Missing archive link;
 * Pittock, Murray (2004). "Charles Edward [Charles Edward Stuart; styled Charles; known as the Young Pretender, Bonnie Prince Charlie]". doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/5145.
 * Satsuma, p. 37 passim [But probably same as Shinsuke, Satsuma (2013).]
 * Szechi & Sankey pp 90–128
 * Szechi, Daniel, Sankey, Margaret (November 2001). "Elite Culture and the Decline of Scottish Jacobitism 1716–1745". Past & Present. 173 (173): 90–128. JSTOR 3600841.
 * Possibly in references but not in cites:
 * MacInnes, Allan (ed), Graham, Leslie (ed); Living with Jacobitism, 1690–1788: The Three Kingdoms and Beyond; (Routledge, 2015);
 * Removed
 * Chambers, Robert; History of the Rebellion of 1745–1746; (W. & R. Chambers, 1869).
 * Removed
 * Cruickshanks, Eveline; Political Untouchables. The Tories and the '45 (Duckworth, 1979)
 * Removed
 * Possibly in references but not in cites:
 * MacInnes, Allan (ed), Graham, Leslie (ed); Living with Jacobitism, 1690–1788: The Three Kingdoms and Beyond; (Routledge, 2015);
 * Removed
 * Chambers, Robert; History of the Rebellion of 1745–1746; (W. & R. Chambers, 1869).
 * Removed
 * Cruickshanks, Eveline; Political Untouchables. The Tories and the '45 (Duckworth, 1979)
 * Removed
 * Removed
 * Other issues
 * As a general point, where the Source was published pre-ISBN, I've provided the original publication date and if it has been republished (which is increasingly common), I've provided the edition I'm using, with the associated ISBN. That makes it a lot easier to track down a copy if interested - so I'm (trying) to be helpful.
 * Dickson, William Kirk (ed) (1895). CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list (link) Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs orig-year;
 * Blaikie, Walter Biggar (1916). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs orig-year;
 * Groves Lt-Colonel, Percy (1893). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs orig-year;
 * Ward, AA (1907). The Cambridge Modern History Atlas (2018 ed.). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs orig-year;
 * Murray, John (author), Bell, Robert Fitzroy (ed) (1898). Memorials of John Murray of Broughton (2018 ed.). Franklin Classics. ISBN 978-0341961666.CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list
 * Wemyss, Alice, Sibbold, John (ed) (1853). Elcho of the '45 (2003 ed.). Saltire Society. p. 77. ISBN 978-0854110803.CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list (link) Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs orig-year;
 * Stewart, James A Jnr (2000–2001). CS1 maint: Date format (link) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Robinvp11 (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Another reviewer above suggested simply deleting the 'Sources' section as duplicative. It would also resolve this 'in sources but not in cites' business. Thoughts? Svejk74 (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If I may ask, did you use a tool of any kind when you made the cites/references? ... And to answer your question, I actually have two answers: there's my opinion, and there's Wikipedia. My opinion is that I really f***ing hate the tool wikipedia has to add cites, because it puts full cite book templatesjn the notes instead of References or Works Cited section, which is a swift and easy way to kick the can down the road, but it makes it really f***ing hard to keep things straight for any article with more that say five cites. Which is to say, for any meaningful article. So I of course would love to take all those cite books out of the notes and put them in References where they belong. That's my first answer. My second answer is: Wikipedia has a depressingly large number of rules, policies, and guidelines. oddly enough, however, absolutely none of them have even the slightest, tiniest bit of meaning or weight except BLP. And BLP only has any teeth because WP is afraid of getting sued. So do whatever the fuck you like. Wikipedia doesn't really care. There's my reply. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I was learning as I went on this one; some editors get really touchy if you 'correct' their sources so it started as a bit of a hybrid but now normally use the templates provided.
 * In my business, we tell people the world is too complex and you have to rely on behaviours and values, not endless guidelines (less is more). Some editors (take a look at the articles on James II and Charles I) cherry pick items from Wikipedia guidelines (or make them up) to reverse changes without having to justify them. Rant done.

Robinvp11 (talk) Robinvp11 (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Are these two actually different?
 * Lingzhi2 ♦ (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They're the same book, different format (paperback v hardback), different publishers.
 * They're the same book, different format (paperback v hardback), different publishers.
 * Did anyone actually complain about the possibility of changing reference format/ i have a crappy old program I just dusted off and trie to fix; I'm testing it on this article User:Lingzhi2/sandbox. It's very very far from done, but if you think it helps you could use it when it's done. after putting a note on article talk page. Lingzhi2 ♦ (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day can you confirm if you are happy with the sources now? Thanks, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Robinvp11 (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Robinvp11 (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm very grateful for the support (here comes the but)...I honestly don't understand why the reference format selected is 'better;' tbh, I find it confusing because the references are no longer sequential ie we go from 22 to 19. I know the logic, I don't need it explained but why is it 'better?'
 * If this is a Go/No go for A list rating, then it matters but I'm struggling to figure out what is Wikipedia policy and its frustrating. I've used the templates that are presumably the fruits of many years experience - but the message I'm hearing is that they're not right. If that's the case, why are we using them?
 * The warning "Pub. too early for ISBN" (below) doesn't always mean add orig-year; it sometimes means the date is wrong. Check carefully.
 * Unless you know what the 'right' date is, how would you know these are wrong? And its not simple; eg Elcho wrote in the 1750s but I'm working off versions that were edited and put together in 1916 and 1948. So what is right?
 * By the way, you're welcome for Whyte Ian D. below. That one was way wrong.
 * On that topic, for future reference, sometimes in encyclopedias or similar the sections have initials at the end, like "IDW". You have to find the list of contributors in the front or back of book to find "Ian D. Whyte". In general, any time a source is given in wikipedia with an editor but no author, it's a minor red flag that says "go check this"
 * Again, appreciated but with many books, Google's getting wise to this and doesn't give page numbers so I provided the link to the page; it doesn't make sense for a web-based encyclopedia not to keep up with current usage. I don't mind removing it or finding an alternative, I'm not trying to create extra work for editors who are contributing their time for nothing.
 * Campsie, Alison (31 October 2017). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.);
 * It's a newspaper article, and I've used the template provided with the link.
 * Morris, RJ (1992). Proceedings of the British Academy.  Missing Publisher (but maybe OK because British Academy)
 * It is ok - personally, I think I should be congratulated for finding it.
 * Blaikie, Walter Biggar (1916). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs orig-year;
 * {y}} Just going to use one
 * Blaikie, Walter Biggar (1917). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs orig-year;
 * Elcho, David (1948). In Tayler, Henrietta. Missing pagenums for book chapter? Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
 * Groves, Percy (1893). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs orig-year;
 * Ward, AA (1907). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs orig-year;
 * See above - what is it you're asking me to do?
 * Whyte, Ian D. (24 February 2011). "economy (1500–1770s)". Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? ♦
 * See above
 * See above
 * Final comment before disengage I'm not gonna support or oppose. I really think you need to take a hard look atthe Ward ref for a couple reasons: First, it's an atlas. Atlases contain maps not history, right?. There;s also a . Is that the one you want? Second, I prfer archive.org over the commercial concern Forgotten Books, which could go out of business... I'm done here, but you should fix that one... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A couple of things. I'm putting this here because I have some concerns about the review process - so its not just you. I'm done here seems somewhat dismissive.
 * Context; one reason I put this up for A list review was because I'm frustrated at how often editors use 'you're not following Wikipedia standards' when they don't agree but are too lazy to argue it (I have numerous examples). Ergo, if I have a base line, it makes life easier so that's partly what I've focused on;
 * I've asked this several times without really getting an answer; what is 'standard?' eg use of images, reference formats, source requirements etc. I have no argument whatsoever with the principle of consistency - that's not the same thing as 'this is what I do, so you do it.' I appreciate the work you did on the references and I've now said thank you three times; that doesn't mean I agree and I don't have to.
 * I'm pretty good at receiving feedback which is clearly reflected in this process, because even when I don't agree with a suggested change, it makes me think about it (again, I can provide examples). I've been polite, I've implemented 95% of the changes I've been asked for, including extensive rewriting of entire sections and I've said Thanks; so that gives me the right to push back (politely);
 * You are the second reviewer to tell me you're going to oppose it for A list if I don't respond and when I make the changes, tell me you're not going to support it. I clearly don't understand what the purpose of the review is and I'd like someone to explain it to me. That's not unreasonable.
 * I'm happy to remove the Ward reference and that's what I would have done several iterations ago; finding references is not a challenge;
 * Books do not disappear because the publisher goes out of business; the internet has been around for 25 years (give or take), books have been around for several thousand. So we'll have to disagree on that.
 * Once again, I appreciate the help and the intent.
 * what Lingzhi2 means is adding an parameter to some of the book cites. For example, this reference used in the Theresienstadt Ghetto article. The 2017 publication was consulted, and therefore 2017 is used for the date and the ISBN corresponds to that edition. However, it is noted that the first edition of the book was published in 1955, which cues readers in that it's not the most up-to-date source. So, if a source was published in 1907 but you consulted the 1995 edition, you would use  and . Alternatively, if you did consult the 1907 edition, then you should use the correct OCLC for that edition because no ISBN would have been issued. buidh<b style="color: White">e</b> 02:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks; so I'm assuming (per the template provided for Books), that's Date versus Edition.

Robinvp11 (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll read your comments in depth in a moment, but quickly wanna say "I'n done here" is not at all meant to be dismissive. It is meant to mean "I am not doing anything else; it looks mostly OK to me." As for not supporting, that is also not any sort of a commentary about you or the article.It only means that I only checked the formatting of the references', not the whole article, nor the correspondence between your references and the info they support. I can't support something if I didn't check the whole thing. I suppose I could have written Support the formatting of the references. Sorry that I didn't... Moreover, didn't I see at least two Supports and no Opposes above? You're in like Flynn, dude... I will read more details now...Hmmmm, the reason I put a Conditional Oppose on the article a while back is not manipulation or extortion. Believe it or not, once again it has nothing to do with you at all. It's because coordinators have on three or four occasions archived a review while I was still working. In this particular case, the anount of work left to do ws considerable, in my opinion. As for Forgotten Books, in my opinion, they simply aren't as reliable as archive.org or other similar orgs. FB is haphazard. They don't provide detailed info. And yes, they could disappear... sorry for these misunderstandings ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to clarify - I've learnt a number of useful things from the process, which is helpful. Having spent most of my life operating in other people's languages, I know intent and interpretation are two very different things, especially when operating through technology (personally, I found it easier to work in Thai or Bahasa than American English :)). Thanks again.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * What does harv mean?

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a citation anchor for Harvard referencing templates, which means that if you click on a given footnote, it links to the relevant citation template (cite book or whatever) in your References or Bibliography. I find it very convenient and easy to use. If you have a look at Roy Inwood you will see how it is used in practice. See Template:Cite book and Template:Citation/doc for more information. Also Robin, you don't have to place your signature two lines down, you can just append it immediately after your comment. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks!Robinvp11 (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by P. S. Burton
Some comments on the sources. More to follow. – P. S. Burton  (talk)  14:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * What makes britishbattles.com a reliable source? I appears to be a website with articles written by an amateur historian. Please see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7805077.stm
 * I included it as a suggestion from another reviewer; personally, I'm dubious but in the context, I think it fits perfectly ie 'it is often cited.'


 * I cannot find this author or publisher. The ISBN appears to be incorrect. Should this perhaps be ?


 * Thanks for spotting that; I think it was transposed, should be


 * ; ; Are Phd and BA theses. For a subject so extensively  written about by professional historians I believe that is it resonable to expect higher quality sources. Could these be replaced?


 * I don't agree PHD theses are 'lower quality;' these are done as post-graduate work, are supervised by professional historians and cover aspects to a level of detail that do not appear in 'popular history.' That's why they're done; professional historians use them as building blocks for their own work and many serve as the starting point for later books. They are at least as well researched and relevant as journal articles listed on JSTOR.


 * The paragraph quoted below in the legacy section is only supported by links to the two paintings. I would consider this interpetation original research. Instead of showing the paintings you need to find an art historian supporting these statements in the paragraph:
 * They are supported by references elsewhere (I'm not an art critic :)) but I'm not sure they need to be in, so I've taken them out
 * Perspectives were also shaped by 19th-century Scottish art; until the 1860s, the Highlands were portrayed by artists like Horatio McCulloch as wild, remote places largely empty of people. This was gradually replaced by the so-called "Jacobite Romantic" artists who focused on events from the past, such as John Blake MacDonald's 1879 painting Glencoe, 1692.




 * Thanks!

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day . I propose wrapping up this A-Class review shortly, as it appears to have sufficient support. Did you have anything to add? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all - I learned a lot about the process, which was a primary objective - even when I don't agree, it's useful to consider why that is so. Also, big thanks to whoever dug out better pictures - the one of Forbes in particular fits what we know of his character perfectly. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)