Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sieges of Berwick (1355 and 1356)

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 Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Sieges of Berwick (1355 and 1356)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

A supplement to one of Edward III's many invasions of Scotland. GA a little while ago and possibly sufficient to become A class. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass for the map in "Fall and recapture of Berwick town", it might look better using {{maplink}} as this would de-emphasize modern boundaries. (t · c) buidhe 23:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

Looks pretty good, but I have a couple of issues:

In the lead it says that "in 1355 the Second War of Scottish Independence had been underway for 13 years" but in the body it says: "by 1333 England and Scotland were at war again when Edward besieged Berwick, starting the Second War of Scottish Independence." This does not add up.

I assume that was a thumb-fingered typo rather than appallingly poor maths. Fixed.

"bounderies" is a misspelling.

Oops,. Corrected.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye, both of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

"subsequent unsuccessful siege of Berwick castle" Isn't the castle a proper noun?

It is, it is. And I've been inconsistent! Corrected.

"regents of the newly-crowned 14-year-old King Edward III" No reign template?
"Encouraged by the French king, John II" Same as above?
"David II, was captured" Same as above?

They are optional, so long as one is consistent. Which I wasn't. So now added. (Only in the main body, not in the lead.)

"with Edward's son about to lead an attack in south-west France" Maybe add his name here?

His name was also Edward, but he is universally known now as the Black Prince, which seems a bit complicated for a passing mention. What do you think?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA-5, all addressed except the last one, which is a query. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CPA-5 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry was busy with exams (last one was today) but it looks good. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

Will take this one on; if I haven't gotten around to it within a few days ping me. Hog Farm _Talk 22:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are all reliable enough for ACR
The Google books link for Robson is 404-ing for me

Me too. Removed.

If you're linking authors, consider linking G. W. S. Barrow, Michael Brown (historian) (if that's the right historian), Michael Prestwich, Jonathan Sumption, Lord Sumption, Anthony Tuck. I'm always surprised at how many more of these medieval England historians have articles as opposed to the ACW ones

Linked. UK academics must be more notable ;-) .

Spot checks not done. Sourcing looks fine; passing. Hog Farm _Talk 03:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm. Both actions addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kges1901

Is there a reason why Berwick Castle and Northumbria are not linked in the lead?

Sloppiness? Fixed.

I can accept that medieval casualties wouldn't be reported, but to have unknown for both strength and casualties means that the infobox doesn't say much at all

This is not helped by it covering two (or possibly three) different sieges, with numbers fluctuating during the course of each. The only figure which the sources give is that for the Scots in the final siege, but trying to get everything in, when most of the numbers are "unknown" seemed likely to be more confusing than helpful. This sort limited infobox is not that uncommon - and it does communicate that the numbers were not known. But the main issue is in trying to cover two (or three) events in one article.

Encouraged by the French king, John II (r. 1350–1364), the Scots invaded England with a large army, certain that few English troops would be left to defend the rich northern English cities, the Scots were decisively beaten at the Battle of Neville's Cross and their king, David II (r. 1329–1371), was captured. - Run on sentence, needs splitting

Oops. Split.

Is there an explanation as to why the most of the attacking Scots abandoned the siege before Edward arrived?

Sadly, not in the sources. ORing, the whole English army headed by a very annoyed king was on its way. I am amazed that anyone stayed.

according to a contemporary "by reason of the discord of the magnates" - Is this implying that there was disunity among the Scots magnates that affected the conduct of the campaign? This could be expanded upon to give more context if there is more information in the sources. Kges1901 (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, and annoyingly, not. ORing freely, I am guessing that there was a fair bit of "I told you so" at the leaders who had opportunistically broken the truce. I have an FA on the broader campaign - Burnt Candlemas - note " Much of the territory they were despoiling was part of the estates of Patrick of March, one of the leaders of the Scottish assault on Berwick in defiance of the truce."

Hi Kges1901 and many thanks for the review. Good points there, see what you think to my responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the limitations of the sources, I think you've done a good job on this, supporting. Kges1901 (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.