Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Inverkeithing/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2021 [1].

Battle of Inverkeithing edit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A battle from the misnamed Third English Civil War with which the English finally broke the Scots defences and subsequently overran Scotland. There was a ridiculous brew of politics and religion behind the scenes for both sides, especially the Scottish, which I have attempted to capture. An article I have been working on for nearly six months and which I believe I have got to FA standard. Of course, other opinions may be available ... Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and source review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 23:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

Marking my spot here. At first glance, there seem to be more name and places that could be linked in image captions? FunkMonk (talk)
"Battle of Inverkeithing II" What is the significance of the "II"?

That is the Historic Environment Scotland reference, so you really need to ask them. Their overview starts "The second battle of Inverkeithing is ..." but I can find no trace anywhere of what nor when the first battle was.

"After a protracted political struggle, the Engagers" These have not been presented, you only mention "an offer known as the Engagement" earlier. Is there a way to connect the two, by stating the Engagement spawned a movement or similar?

Good point. Clarified. ("the supporters of the Engagement".)

"and the faction opposed to the Engagement was able to regain control of the government, with the assistance of a group of English parliamentary cavalry led by Cromwell" So this was achieved militarily or how? A bit ambiguous with the current wording.

Removed "with the assistance of a group of English parliamentary cavalry led by Cromwell". It is too much detail and only snuck in because I was seduced by the coincidence of Cromwell being the cavalry commander.

"Exasperated by the prolonged bloodshed, the New Model Army purged the English Parliament" State it was Parliamentarian? This is not clear from the article, I had to look it up at the army's article.

D'oh! Replaced "New Model Army" with 'Parliamentarian army'.

"Leslie prepared a defensive line of earthworks between the Scottish capital Edinburgh and Leith,[40] employed a scorched earth policy from there to the Scottish border[39] and allowed Cromwell to advance unopposed." Should there be a comma after border?

No. (Only if one employs Oxford commas and ignores Lynn Truss's opinion on commas. I do neither. The link is courtesy of Mike.)

"Their main force encamped on the all but invulnerable Doon Hill" Whose main force? A bit hard to deduce from the preceding sentence, "The Scottish army outflanked the English, blocking the road to Berwick and England at the easily defended Cockburnspath Defile".

Another good point - I get too close to this stuff. Tweaked.

Hi FunkMonk and once again thanks. Your comments so far addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this[2] cropped version of the Cromwell at Dunbar painting would look better (without the borders).

I created that crop, so I have no idea why I didn't use it! *rolly eyes*

Haha, didn't notice that! Perhaps that version could use some tweaks to remove the grey tint and improve contrast? I can do it, if you're ok with it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did it (it's an automatic function in Photoshop, so it wasn't up to my preferences), I think it looks quite a bit better. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That looks cracking. Thank you.

I find myself mentally cringing over the religiously-motivated blunders of the Scots again and again, I guess that's a sign of engaging writing! Perhaps significant enough to mention in the intro?

Flatterer. At if you get into the details, it actually gets worse. Done.

Link isthmus in the article body?

Done.

Inverkeithing is only linked in the intro.

Grr! Thanks. Done.

"Cromwell issued contingency orders as to what measures to take if this were to occur" Pardon my potential ignorance, but shouldn't that be "was to occur"?

I get confused about this. "was" sounds wrong to me, but changed to, on the grounds that you are more likely to know what you're doing than me.

My thinking was that "this" would refer to an invasion, which is singular. But as you now, I'm certainly no expert on the English language... FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I follow the logic, and can't argue it. It still doesn't sound right, but what do I know? I will leave it as "was"; it is either correct, or if not I can blame you.

"The Scottish Covenanter government was abolished, and the English commanders imposed military rule" Anything on how long that lasted? And was this the end of Scottish military autonomy?

We may be getting off topic, but I have added some stuff to the bottom.

I think it's good for context, as I was wondering what all this lead to.

Fair enough. That's what reviewers are there for. (Among other things, obviously.)

FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Funk. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few comments, but I think it's as good as done, and I'll support after your next replies. FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk, not a lot to respond to, but responded. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - interesting stuff, and looks nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit edit

I'll do a more thorough review, but on first inspection a couple of thoughts:

Should the first paragraph of the lead be more focussed? At present the first two sentences are about the battle, then it has two sentences about the situation which led to the invasion. Might those latter two sentences be split off or merged with the next, and a bit more about the battle added to the first paragraph, perhaps briefly touching on Lambert's objectives and the significance of the battle?

Yeah, well, there is certain information which has to go into the first sentence or two, so there is frequently a chronological discontinuity immediately afterwards. I see where your suggestion is coming from and have tried to draft something to follow it, but I end up with "the battle and what Lambert was trying to do, but with no context for the latter", jumping back to "the campaign giving the context for the landing and battle", followed by jumping back again to "the deep context and reasons for the war", followed by a "summary of the aftermath". Which really doesn't work at all.

The requirement to, effectively, do a summary of the summary in the first one or two sentences is the problem.

I have re-paragraphed, which give a very short and a very long paragraph, but each which is now individually more coherent. IMO. See what you think.

That's better, I think.

I also note that the lead doesn't link to Inverkeithing anywhere; it links to North Queensferry where the English landed, but it doesn't actually specify where the battle took place, perhaps something could be added?

Indeed. The battle was named after the nearest settlement, no part of it took place in Inverkeithing. Or, if it did, none of the sources mention it. The sources hardly mention Inverkeithing at all, and it was a bit of a struggle to get a natural sounding mention of it into the main article.

I Had thought "and landed at North Queensferry. The Scots sent forces to pen the English in, and the English reinforced their landing. On 20 July the Scots moved against the English and in a short engagement were routed." made the location reasonably obvious, but I could be more specific if you think it would be helpful.

I wonder if the initial 'summarising the summary' paragraph could be expanded slightly and improved by mentioning the location? Something along the lines of 'The battle was fought on land between the settlements of North Queensferry and Inverkeithing, for which it is named' or something like that?

I'm not sure there was a settlement at South Queensferry at the time. I can't source it anyway. How is what I have come up with?

In the aftermath section: "Charles and Leslie could not resist the lure of England". This is sourced to Woolrych, but I don't think it really properly represents his description of the events - he has a demoralised, half starved and under-resourced Scottish army, which Leslie knew could not possibly challenge Cromwell, making a desperate bid to reach England in the hopes of raising Roylist support and being able to threaten London. I'm not sure 'unable to resist the lure' quite gets that across?

State of the Royalist army: "a demoralised, half starved and under-resourced Scottish army". I am not seeing this in Woolrych. The closest I can find refers to mid-May "he was having great difficulty in feeding even them." More explicit descriptions of the state of the army, from Woolrych or elsewhere, would be welcome. I do currently have "cutting off the Scottish army from reinforcements, provisions and materiel". I could add the bit about the shortage of muskets causing some men to be armed with bows if you want?

Re "lure": quite right, I skipped referencing that sentence, apologies. I could, with two RSs, but as I don't think you would like that I have concentrated on the "desperation" aspect.

What you've got now definitely tallies better with my understanding from last year's work, but I confess I was going on memory on Woolrych - perhaps that was from a different source. I'm happy with what's there now anyway.

More later when I have time. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Girth Summit, excellent poking. See what you think of my long winded responses. I look forward to your having some further reviewing time. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some responses and a suggestion above - give me a few days and I should be able to see if there's anything else. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support after a proper read through - I'm happy with the changes made to address the points raised above, and can't see anything else jumping out at me as a problem. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF edit

I'll take a look at this soon. Might claim for WikiCup points. Hog Farm _Talk 18:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"although the basic formation of the regiment varied greatly in size." - Is this variation between the two armies, or between regiments within the same army? It's not quite clear from the phrasing

Good spot. That was phrased really badly. Clarified. (I think/hope.)

It stands out to me that in the opposing forces section, the distances given are a mixture of feet converted into meters and meters converted into feet. Wouldn't it make the most sense to be consistent with which type of units (metric vs American) is the primary one given?

Different sources, talking about different things. But I take your point and all conversions now have the imperial measurement first.

We're given English cavalry tactics, what about Scottish cavalry tactics?

Have I over-summarised? I have unpacked it a little. Is that sufficient?

I worked through most of the prose issues I would have seen in the ACR, and I've looked at the sourcing, and it looks fine to me. Hog Farm _Talk 18:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm, that is much appreciated. Your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support on criteria 1a, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, and as far as I can tell, 1b. I did not check criteria 3. Hog Farm _Talk 01:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zawed edit

Pulling up my chair here. Starting with the background, will come back to lead once I have read the whole article.

Background

Scottish Kirk: seems a bit "jargony", the link goes to Church of Scotland. Presumably that is the more common name, why not use that text instead?

Actually, having read more of the article the Kirk is a useful shorthand for the Church of Scotland, I can see why you use it. Perhaps "Church of Scotland, known as the Kirk,..."? That gives the reader some initial context without then having to follow the link.

Good point. I think that I got to close to the sources. Amended as you suggest.

...and gained for the Scottish Parliament...: perhaps its just me, but the "gained" seems awkward. Could it not read "and gave the Scottish Parliament..."

Another good point. Gone with 'granted'. That OK?

Infantry

...although regiments in both armies varied greatly in size. the term "both armies" is used twice in close succession. Suggest this mention be amended to "although the English and Scottish regiments varied greatly in size."

Hog Farm was also unhappy about how I phrased this, so I have rewritten. It now reads "The regiment was the standard tactical unit, but their size was not standardised and varied greatly." Are you both content with that? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That wording is fine by me. Hog Farm _Talk 18:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Up to Prelude, more to come. Zawed (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English invasion of Scotland

...New Model Army; leading it across the... the usage of the semi-colon doesn't seem right in this context, although admittedly I can't quite articulate why. Perhaps it is because it precedes a "present participle" (I had to google that term). I think it would be OK if it was made past tense, e.g. "New Model Army; he led it across the..."

Semi colon removed. Past tense used.

Its mentioned that Cromwell marched from Musselburgh but last the reader was informed, he was at Edinburgh. Suggest clarifying a little; perhaps he withdrew to Musselburgh after the failed attempt to draw out the Scottish forces?

Mention of Musselburgh removed. It is not necessary in an article dealing with events nearly a year later and, I think, only confuses a reader.

The Scots main force... possessive?

Good spot. Done

Battle of Dunbar

Notes 30, 51 are used twice in two successive sentences. Ditto note 59. Going back to previous sections, notes 10, 26 (twice), 39

Removed, but not [10]; this is only used twice, the second time in conjunction with another cite - to remove the first "[10]" would suggest that the first two sentences are also cited to [11].

access to north-east Scotland inconsistency with compass headings, hyphen here but not in previous section in regard to the coastal road running south west.

I don't hyphenate directions, hence "south west". But when used as a a compound modifier I hyphenate as I would any other a compound modifier, eg "pre-dawn attack", "Scottish-held territory" or "north-east Scotland". So it looks inconsistent, but it isn't. :-)

Up to Crossing the Forth, more to come. Zawed (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing the Forth

the English shipped the balance of their own force... suggest "the English shipped the balance of their forces..."

Done.

ordered his force to pull back. to avoid the repeated "force" from earlier in the sentence, suggest "ordered his men to pull back"

Done.

Aftermath

no issues spotted

Lead

Suggest a little tweak to the 2nd paragraph to point out to readers that North Queensferry is on the Ferry Peninsula, it seems to lack context otherwise. Maybe "...and landed at North Queensferry, on the Ferry Peninsula."

Done.

That's it for me. Sorry for the piecemeal approach here, I haven't been able to get in a lot of editing time for the past few days. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zawed. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I am happy to support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

@Ian Rose:, Ealdgyth, @FAC coordinators: Hi guys, this nomination seems to be running smoothly. So far it has passed its source and image reviews and has four supports, including two from non-MilHist editors. So could I have permission to nominate the next one in my queue please. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.