Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Winwick/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 2023 [1].

Battle of Winwick edit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last month I was idly browsing the Historic England Register of Historic Battlefields, which only has 47 entries. As one does. I looked up on Wikipedia a couple which I didn't recognise immediately. Then ... drumroll ... I found one not on Wikipedia! The last battle of the English Civil Wars did not have an article. It does now. I believe that the sources have been scoured. It received a rigorous going over at GAN from Harrias and I now offer it for your scrutiny. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead edit

An article that was created almost exactly a month ago is already a GA and now ready for FA. Wow. The willpower of history nerds both impresses and frightens me. I will have a go at this over the next few days, but my professor is making me write a seven-page paper on Alexander the Great. Delays in both comments and replies are to be expected. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. It took a while to get through GAN, and then had to wait for a FAC slot, or it would have moved along faster. My personal fastest from creation to bronze star is 55 days. Seven pages on AtG, who are you calling a nerd? (The Wiki article is a GA and 13,000 words, you could just cut and paste. And add some commas. ;) ) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel like starting that paper. It's due Wednesday anyways. Here are my comments:

Live dangerously.
  • "The three most useful accounts of the short campaign which included the battles of Preston and Winwick were written by: Oliver Cromwell, commander..." Is the colon here necessary? I think the sentence flows fine without it.
Removed.
  • "Both armies organised their infantry regiments into brigades of three regiments each, which doctrine suggested be deployed two regiments abreast, with the third behind as a reserve" What does doctrine mean in a military context? Is it possible to briefly define it or link an article?
Oh. I just saw the link for it later on. I suggest linking it at first mention though.
Oops. Fixed.
Done.
  • "The Royalist cavalry were similarly equipped, with helmets, pistols, swords and body armour, although many of the Scots bore lances rather than pistols" In a shocking turn of events, I actually do not belive a comma is necessary here (the one after "equipped"). If you could explain your rationale, that would be great.
I could, but my psychotherapist strongly advises agaist it. The world is now the better for having one less comma in it.
  • This is very nitpicky, but in the Artillery section, citation 2 should come before citation 29.
I dunno about should, but as I don't care, done.
  • "Charles agreed to confirm the Solemn League and Covenant by Act of Parliament in both kingdoms, and other conditions, in return for the Scots' assistance in regaining his throne in England" I do not think you have said anything about Charles losing the English throne?
I am assuming that it is the nuance de facto and de jura that you are referring to. So I have switched to "enforcing his claim to the English throne".
  • Link Edinburgh? It is a well-known city though, so maybe not...
Indeed.
Very funny. (Ah, rereading before posting, you are funning me here, yes?)
Indeed. Although if you'd like to, you could do that.
  • "With rebellion breaking out in England and Wales and the Scottish army marching for the border "the future of the three kingdoms hung [...] in the balance", in the view of the modern historian Ian Gentles" This phrase makes it sound like the three kingdoms were England, Scotland, and Wales.
Hmm. It does, doesn't it. Tweaked and the quote removed.
  • "Some men had not eaten nor slept for two nights, cavalrymen fell asleep in their saddles." In another shocking turn of events, this comma does not belong here methinks. Perhaps a coordinating conjunction or a semicolon would do the trick.
Oh goodness. My psychotherapist has called in a cardiologist. Wikipedia was never meant to be this exciting. Semi coloned.
  • There is a strange spacing between the first two paragraphs of the Battle section.
Fixed.
  • You have linked the wrong kind of Stone. LOL.
Ha. Good spot. Fixed.
  • "Those prisoners who had served voluntarily, as opposed to being conscripted, were sent as indentured labour to the Americas": While "indentured labour" technically makes sense in this case, I think "indentured labourer" would make more sense.
Done.
  • "The Scottish Parliament, which had not been consulted before the King's execution, declared his son Charles II, King of Britain": The citations probably say "King of Britian", but this "anacronistic" (sigh, it's always complicated) term makes me uneasy. I think it is alright to leave it in though; other explanations would be longer, more complicated, and might stray from the sources.
No, no. It's vital. The novel use of this term (a deliberate poke in the English eye by a sharp Scottish stick) contributed hugely to the outbreak of war.
! Yes, I am sure you're serious. Done.
Whoops. I thought I had done that. Thank you.
  • Citation 2 should come before citation 98.
Done.
  • Not my specialty, but I think many of your images need tags on Commons (including US ones)?
Not mine either, but seven have been through at least three previous FACs, and the other three seem appropriately licenced. Which specific ones drew your attention.
Forget I said anything. I don't even know how to upload cropped versions of images. I'll let Nikkimaria handle the image aspect. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which image did you want me to look at? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Nikkimaria: I thought File:St Oswald's Church, Winwick.jpg; File:Re-enactment - The Siege of Bolingbroke Castle - geograph.org.uk - 1780073.jpg; File:Helmet for a Harquebusier MET sfsb2012.15 002.jpeg; and File:Musket volley by Sealed Knot.JPG needed tags in order to be used in this FA. Is that true, or are the Creative Commons permission things sufficient? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CC licenses will generally apply worldwide*, as does the PD tag on the last of those. The UK has fairly broad freedom of panorama so the church isn't an issue in that respect either, and IMO the helmet would fall under UTIL. So these look fine. *Pre-4.0 generic CC licenses are intended to be internationally applicable, although they have ported versions. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks Nikkimaria. I assume this counts as an image review pass? All of them have proper licensing, ALT text, and captions. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, could I echo Unlimitedlead's query? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only looked at those specific images; I didn't do a full image review. But it sounds like Unlimitedlead did? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm not an expert at images, I'm not going to go so far as to declare the image review to be a pass, but I do believe everything is in order. Now Gog just needs to wait for someone to formally give an image review and we should be all set to go. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog. The commas. You're killing me...

Wa da ya mean! You have just insisted on the removal of two. Clearly I overdid it when scattering commas randomly across the article.
Trust me when I say that there were many instances where I thought a comma was needed Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js and User:Phlsph7/HighlightUnreferencedPassages picked up nothing, which is always a good thing. Once these comments have been addressed, I will be glad to give my support. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged Unlimitedlead. Your comments all addressed I think. Less than 4 hours from nomination to a comprehensive review, and less than 5 to a response. We could be going for all sorts of records here. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to my comments so promptly; I'll support this nomination. It was great to see an article closer to my area of expertise :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is that? (AtG sounds close enough to the Punic Wars.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's English history, which is why I am taking up Edward I and Henry II for FA. I do occasionally dabble in the Hellenistic and Byzantine worlds, though. It's my guilty pleasure. LOL. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. Four of my first six GANs were Byzantine bios. Zoë Porphyrogenita: makes Game of Thrones seem unimaginative. I ended up with a dozen plus Typos of Constans before moving on to FACs. (The Typos, if you invented it it would fail suspension of disbelief.) I must do some more some time.
I tend to find most English royalty deadly boring. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite boring, which is why I enjoy doing it. In all seriousness though, many of my fellow Americans are hardcore fanboys/fangals of the British monarchy, so I must attain glory and honor by bringing said articles to FA. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harrias edit

  • "Hannay, David (1911)" doesn't have a publisher location, while all other book sources do. In the GAN you mentioned a convention that encyclopedias don't include the location, but I can't see this documented in the MOS, and I don't really see what would make an encyclopedia special in this regard.

I looked this over pretty thoroughly at GAN, and I'm happy that it is in FA-worthy shape. I have brought the above point up again, but it isn't nearly enough for me to object to promotion. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Links removed.
We don't seem to, no.
Thanks Jo-Jo, responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK then. To be clear, the "problem" with the two files above is whether we are fine with using images subject to that copyright dispute on Wikipedia's featured articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is always helpful to be clear, and Commons, the Wikimedia Foundation and US copyright law are. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support and some quibbles from Jim edit

An interesting read, and not much to query, so I'm happy to support and just mention a few points for your consideration. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • These were reliable and robust weapons — Looking back at the previous sentence, "They..." might be better
Done.
  • Most of the Parliamentarian cavalry were mounted on large, for the time, horses. —Any indication of the typical size?
Ooph. You ask some tough ones. I have seen nothing, but shall do a little research - more in hope than expectation.
Sadly, nothing has turned up. My The Medieval Warhorse has lots of stuff - up to about 1400. There is stuff from about 1790. There is a surprising amount of stuff on horse procurement during the ECW, and a bit more on relative sizes, but nothing I can find on absolute size. Even specialist articles like "Horse Supply and the Development of the New Model Army, 1642—1646" have nothing on this. :-(
From some less reliable sources and pretty OR, it looks like they were in the region of 14.2 hands (4' 10"), but I can't provide anything useable unfortunately. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Harrias, there is even a book, Horses, People and Parliament in the English Civil War - no use at all! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • who may have numbered as many as 11,000 in the immediate aftermath of Preston, mostly Scots — who in the immediate aftermath of Preston may have numbered as many as 11,000, mostly Scots.
Ah. Good. Thank you. Done.
  • Hermitage Brook and the barrier of the Red Bank on the south side of Hermitage Green Lane can still be clearly seen. —Could these features be named where they first appear in the text?
Red Bank is, in the second sentence of the Battle section. Re the brook, in the same sentence I managed to misname Heritage Brook as Newton Brook, of which Hermitage is a tributary. Now corrected, and thank you for making me check that.
  • Note 3 It was a permanent and fully professional force and commanded by Thomas Fairfax gained a formidable reputation during the last two years of the First English Civil War. —perhaps some commas! It was a permanent and fully professional force and, commanded by Thomas Fairfax, gained a formidable reputation during the last two years of the First English Civil War.
I have gone with "It was a permanent and fully professional force; commanded by Thomas Fairfax it gained a formidable reputation during the last two years of the First English Civil War." [?]
Thanks Jimfbleak, responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

Putting down a marker. - SchroCat (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing forces
  • "10 equally sizes companies": sized?
D'oh! Fixed.
  • "Keeping the slow match burning at all times resulted in the consumption of a vast amount," a vast amount of... time, effort, saltpetre or something else?
Of slow match! You would really prefer "Keeping the slow match burning at all times resulted in the consumption of a vast amount of slow match"?
"a vast amount of it" would suffice. It reads rather oddly as it stands, but that may just be me. - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha! Done.
  • "18 inches (46 cm) to 24 inches (61 cm) long": if you use {{convert|18|to(-)|24|in|cm}} you will get "18 to 24 inches (46–61 cm)", which may be easier on the eye
Done.
  • "Some regiments had barely half their establishment and at that more than half were new recruits": not sure you need the "at that", which hinders rather than helps
Well something needs to go there. Changed to "Some regiments had barely half their establishment, of whom more than half were new recruits". Does that work?
It does indeed. - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done to the end of Background – SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat, much appreciated. I am looking forward to the rest. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
  • "After in-fighting between factions": Do we need the rest of the paragraph? It seems to be putting a lot of flexibility on the word "aftermath". (I don't press the point – just something for you to consider)
Cheers SchroCat, just so I am clear, you are suggesting that the three sentences commencing "On 3 February the dominant a ..." be deleted? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - or at least be considered. Yes, those points followed chronologically, but are they the aftermath of this battle, or the aftermath of the civil war, of which this battle was one part? - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely take your point. But I can't help thinking that if I were a reader I would feel a little short changed if the article were to end where you propose. In the spirit of Wikipedia, would the other reviewers to date care to chuck in an informal !vote whether to remove those three sentences or not? @Unlimitedlead, Harrias, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Jimfbleak: Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer for the sentences to stay. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't press the point – just something for you to consider. To me it looks a bit of a stretch, that's all - no worries either way. - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood SC. I am finely balanced re the point, and probably a little close to the article, so thought some input from others who have just read the article would help. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When in doubt, I'm inclined to keep stuff in Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave the sentences in, it seems like pertinent context. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more additional point - and a response above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - regardless of the last three sentences, this is certainly at FA level in terms of prose. (Not being an expert in civil war history, I make no judgement on the completeness of the article or the sources, etc). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is very decent of you, thanks SchroCat. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass edit

As I looked over the sources at GA and know they're in pretty good shape, I'll take a deeper dive on this shortly. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting and consistency looks pretty good on the whole, but I made sure to leave a couple of points for this FAC ;)

  • "Stewart, Laura A.M." should have spaced out initials, as per the MOS. (Also, shouldn't it be Stewart, Laura U. H. O. L. H. ??)
Probably, but I don't need the grief. Fixed.
  • Listing "Historic England" as both the website and the publisher "Battle of Winwick (also known as Battle of Red Bank) 1648" and "Registered Battlefields" is unnecessary.
Ok.
  • In "Reese, Peter (2006)" you list the publisher as "Pen & Sword Military", but in "Wanklyn, Malcolm (2014)" you merely list it as "Pen & Sword" – as far as I'm aware, both are published by the "Pen & Sword Military" imprint of "Pen & Sword", so stick with one or the other.
Standardised. Good spot.
  • All sources used appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources.
  • Spotchecks carried out on "Brooks, Richard (2005)" and "Wanklyn, Malcolm (2014)", as I have matching editions on my shelves:
    • 21 – I'm a bit wary about using a source stating that the Scots bore lances at Dunbar in September 1650 to support them also having lances at Winwick in August 1648.
Fair enough. I can find others. The leader of the Parliamentarian forlorn was killed by two lancers. I'll dig a better source out.
I got up again. This niggled. Bull & Seed, page 16. "A weapon unique to the Scottish cavalry was the lance. Many Scots were conventionally armed with sword and pistols. ... but the lance was not only a cheap alternative ..."
Hmm. I already use Bull & Seed. Ok, Brooks removed; the text is fully supported by B & S.
  • 41b – The first part of the sentence, "This had been split into garrisons across the country" seems supported, but I can't see any mention of Fairfax, London, Kent, Maidstone or Colchester on page 185.
Nope, that's in the next cite along, no. 40. Again it looks as if I've idiotically dropped Wanklyn in and not doubled up the subsequent cite. A pattern emerges.
Moved Wanklyn to mid-sentence, to the bit he actually covers, which fixes things.
  • 58 – "Approximately 1,000 Royalists were dead and 4,000 captured by the end of the day." Should be page 492, not 490.
  • 59 – I can't see anything much in Wanklyn about "During this hiatus the Parliamentarian infantry took a circuitous route to the east behind woods and in dead ground to emerge on the flank and rear of the Scots. Sanderson, who was there, has local people telling the Parliamentarians the best route by which to outflank the Scots."
I don't need to check, I know Wanklyn doesn't say that. I also know that Historic England quotes Sanderson, so I assume I've somehow missed a cite. Quickly checking Bull & Seed, cite 66 covers at least part of that, so I assume I inserted the Wanklyn cite without doubling up 66. What a pratt.
So, that seems to be the pointless insertion of a totally irrelevant cite. Wanklyn removed.

A few issues there regarding text-source integrity. I know the information is right, it just isn't in the inline citations given, presumably due to various edits that have chopped and changed the order of things. With three issues of text-source integrity across eleven checks, I'm going to take a look at the information sourced to ref #2 as another check, but that will have to wait until tomorrow. Harrias (he/him) • talk 22:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair. Sorry to have made things complex for you. I'll also sort out my sloppiness above in the morning. No, I'll wait for your further spot checks so I'm not stepping on your toes. 'Night. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The suspense was killing me, so I have dealt with the issues raised so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've had a couple of long days at work, so I haven't had the time to dedicate to this.

No worries. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, and I appreciate your doing the review at all, especially so thoroughly.
  • In the first paragraph of the "Battle" section, is ref #2 supposed to cover all the fact before the parenthetical note, or just the note? I can't see many of the details mentioned (9 miles south of Wigan, thick hedges) in there.
My bad, I had moved it outside the bracket when I addressed your comments above, which will have muddied the waters.
"thick" removed.
I understood that the calculation of straight line distances didn't need citing under the simple maths exemption - neither Wigan nor Winwick having moved since 1648.
Yes, a fair point. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see the speculation that the artillery might have been from the Scots baggage train in ref #2.
Groan. I thought I took that out when I removed the frame gun stuff at GAN. (And I haven't tracked down where I got that from. Not helped by my having Db-g7ed the draft, so I can't trawl through old versions. There's a lesson for me there.) I have cut back to what is in Historic England and B & S. Not that different, but goes around the houses a little.

Other than that, ref #2 checks out fine, and I'm comfortable that again, any issues are just where references have been added in to support inserts. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias and many thanks for labouring through all that. My responses are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good now, nice work. Incidentally, I trawled through the deleted revisions on your draft, and "Cannon balls recovered from the site indicate that the Parliamentarians brought up some readily portable frame guns, probably from those found in the Scottish baggage train." was always referenced to Historic England. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • "to tighten the spacing between their files to approximately 18 inches (460 mm) per man" I don't get this. I can understand limiting the spacing to 18 inches between the files but what's the per man part? Was the spacing larger if there were more men?
You are absolutely right. I had to read it three times to realise that the words didn't actually say what I wanted them to mean. I have changed to "to tighten the spacing between their files so that each man took up only 18 inches (460 mm) frontage". Is that clearer?
  • Several instances (20,11), (21,20) for example, where references are out of order if you care about such things.
I don't. Do you?
  • "The Scots as a whole were unenthusiastic about another round of warfare " You haven't mentioned their participation in warfare yet. Perhaps lay the groundwork with "The Scots, at war for x years at the time of Winwick, were unenthusiastic ..."
Sensible idea, but as to mentioning their participation in war: "In 1639, and again in 1640 ... went to war with his Scottish subjects in the Bishops' Wars."; "starting the First English Civil War in 1642. In England Charles's supporters, the Royalists, were opposed by the combined forces of the Parliamentarians and the Scots."; "After four years of war the Royalists were defeated and Charles surrendered to the Scots on 5 May 1646."; "The Scots eventually ... left England on 3 February 1647."
  • "Once they arrived they attempted to storm the Scottish positions, led by Pride's Regiment, in a push of the pike, but were initially repulsed." Perhaps, " Once they arrived they attempted to storm the Scottish positions in a push of the pike, led by Pride's Regiment, but were initially repulsed."
Ok. Done.
  • "The Scots discarded their weapons and crowded into the village church," You pipe to "village church" here. I might make the pipe to "the village church" to make it clear that you aren't talking about village churches as a type.
Ah, yes, that makes sense. Good thinking. Done.
  • In Aftermath, you might mention briefly what happened to Charles II, you leave him in Scotland and then mention he returned from exile.
Done.
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt, all done. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

@FAC coordinators: As this one seems to be moving along nicely, I was wondering if I could have permission to fire another one up? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that belated ping worked but had this on the watchlist in any case so fire away...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Winwick/archive1&oldid=1142084565"