Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Marshall's Elm
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
Battle of Marshall's Elm edit
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Battle of Marshall's Elm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
Sometimes described as the first engagement of the English Civil Wars, this was a victory for the better trained and led Royalist horse over a much larger force of Parliamentarians travelling across Somerset. The skirmish took place before the formal start of the war, and had no long-term tactical significance: despite their victory, the Royalists were forced out of Somerset two days later in face of overwhelming opposition. As ever, all input appreciated. Harrias talk 10:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Image review - pass edit
- All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned.
- Consider alt text for the photograph.
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Source review - pass edit
The sources used are all solidly reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Support Comments by Zawed
edit
I'm not that familiar with the topic/subject matter so my comments are more in relation to prose and clarity.
- Lead: "recruiting men in the county.": for readers not familiar with English nomenclature, I suggest amending the first sentence of the lead to something like "near Street, in the county of Somerset, Southwest England". This gives context for "the county".
Background: "Tension between Parliament and King Charles...": I know it is obvious, but for avoidance of doubt, could this be amended to refer to "Tension between the English Parliament and King Charles."?Actually strike that, having thought about it more, I think it is unnecessary. Zawed (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)- Background: "Both sides were attempting to recruit the existing militia and new men.": it is not explicitly clear to me if this is in relation to the West Country or England as a whole.
- Background: Rushworth is used to cite the final sentence of the first paragraph. However, the citation is for a page range of 33 pages; is this correct?
- Background: "Somerset; making..": not sure if this is the grammatically correct way of using the semi-colon. To my mind, "making" works if the semi-colon was replaced with a comma. On the other hand, the semi-colon works if making was replaced with something like "this made".
- Prelude: "John Pyne and Captain John Preston...": it would be helpful to have some context for who John Pyne is. I also notice the lead refers to him as Sir John Pyne while the infobox refers to him as Colonel John Pyne.
- Prelude: "...composed of three troops of cavalry and some dragoons." Suggesting rephrasing to "composed of three troops of cavalry and some dragoons, numbering around 60 to 80 in all." This is because the infobox refers to the Royalist numbers as being around 60 to 80.
- Battle: "...was engaged in this, Lunsford...": suggest, for clarity: "was engaged in his discussion with the Parliamentarians, Lunsford..."
- Aftermath: "...gather men around Wells. Groups gathered...": close usage of gather/gathered. Suggest rephrasing to remove one.
Interesting little read, hope the feedback helps get this to A-Class. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC) @Zawed: Thanks for the review; I've tweaked the article accordingly. Harrias talk 11:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by CPA-5
edit
- after the King had attempted to arrest five Members of Parliament Why exactly?
- Good point, have expanded on this. Harrias talk 09:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Harrias: What do you mean by religous? Were they Catholics or was the King a Catholic or somthing else? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @CPA-5: Nothing so simple, sadly. It mostly boiled down to the Catholic/Protestant argument, but it had become more subtle by this stage. Charles was protestant (though he had a Catholic wife), but he preferred to keep many of the Catholic practices, while the Puritan elements in Parliament wanted to remove them. There were also disagreements over the role, or even existence of Bishops within the church, which was at the heart of the Bishops' Wars, another element of the War of the Three Kingdoms. Consensus in reviews has been that trying to explain this is beyond the scope of a battle article however. Harrias talk 10:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, sounds legit. But this does not answer my question here. Why exactly tried the King to imporsen them? Did they tried to plot someone, rebel against the King or were they corrupt, disloyal or traitors to the King or was the King insane and paranoid? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- @CPA-5: Oh sorry, I see what you mean. Obviously more detail is given in the Wikilinked article provided (Five Members). I could probably work a short sentence together, but again, I'm unsure as to whether that context is significant to the scope of this battle. Harrias talk 21:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- @CPA-5: Nothing so simple, sadly. It mostly boiled down to the Catholic/Protestant argument, but it had become more subtle by this stage. Charles was protestant (though he had a Catholic wife), but he preferred to keep many of the Catholic practices, while the Puritan elements in Parliament wanted to remove them. There were also disagreements over the role, or even existence of Bishops within the church, which was at the heart of the Bishops' Wars, another element of the War of the Three Kingdoms. Consensus in reviews has been that trying to explain this is beyond the scope of a battle article however. Harrias talk 10:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Good point, have expanded on this. Harrias talk 09:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- In Somerset in the Civil War, David Underdown criticised the decision What exactly is the Somerset in the Civil War?
- citing Wells' vulnerable position in the Mendip Hills --> "citing Wells's vulnerable position in the Mendip Hills"?
- until the enemy were within 120 paces Hmm 120 paces, is this about medieval paces or modern-day paces. I think there is a difference between those kinds of paces and do know how many metres is that?
- Tension between Parliament and King Charles escalated --> "The tension between Parliament and King Charles escalated"?
- force marching through corn fields about Merge corn fields.
- their heads and weapons visible, so as to disguise --> "their heads and weapons visible, to disguise"
That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- @CPA-5: Thanks, have responded to each point. Harrias talk 09:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Comments by AustralianRupert edit
Support: G'day, Harrias, this looks like a tidy article to me. I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- in the lead, suggest mentioning the Royalist strength, as you have for the Parliamentarian strength
- the lead says around 25 were killed, but the body implies its was potentially 27 ("In addition to the seven killed at the battle, roughly another twenty died of their wounds"). Suggest trying to make this consistent
- the following terms appear to be overlinked: West Country, Charles I of England
- each brought a troop of horse: suggest linking troop here
- muskets are mentioned in the lead, but not in the body; also suggest linking musket
- Lunsford held the Royalist's fire --> "Royalists' fire"?
- The victory provided both a tactical and strategic victory for --> "The battle provided both a tactical and strategic victory for" (to vary the language used)
- countrymen armed only with "pitchforks, dungpecks and suchlike weapons."[15] --> probably best to attribute the quote in text. For instance, "...countrymen armed according to Underdown only with "pitchforks, dungpecks and suchlike weapons.""
- Per a comment at the Babylon Hill FAC, I've changed this to "..countrymen wielding makeshift weapons such as pitchforks." Harrias talk 12:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- suggest adding alt text to the images: [1]
- there are no dab links (no action required)
- @AustralianRupert: Thanks for the review; I have responded to each point above. Harrias talk 12:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- No worries, looks good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- @AustralianRupert: Thanks for the review; I have responded to each point above. Harrias talk 12:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)