Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Berwick (1333)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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 Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Siege of Berwick (1333) edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Siege of Berwick (1333) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

An examination of a siege which led to a catastrophe for Scottish arms and England becoming once again embroiled in the running sore of the Scottish wars. I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it seems to me to cover the topic well and to meet the A class criteria, it has just passed a thorough GAN assessment, and because I have been encouraged to nominate it by a more experienced editor. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest adding a colour legend to the caption of the ceded territory map, and what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you've done for the data source is reasonable for this article, but it might make sense to also add the information to the file description to cover uses of the image elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Constantine edit

Being rather ignorant of the details of the English–Scottish wars, I found the article easy to read and understand, concise and comprehensive. A few minor issues/questions before I support:

  • for the reader who is unfamiliar with the subject, I would recommend adding regnal dates to the monarchs (the {{reign}} template is handy)
  • Done. Except for Richard I who only gets a passing mention and is placed as "140 years before"; and Edward Balliol as in is disputed as to whether he was ever a "legitimate" king, and if it is accepted that he was then he reigned for three separate periods, which seems overcomplicated to try and get into the article. I could footnote the latter if you think it worthwhile.
  • reference is made to Balliol's "truncated Scotland", but can we have some information (a footnote would suffice) about what this was?
  • I have switched the order of the two sentences in question which I hope makes it clearer. It now reads: "On 19 June 1344 Balliol did homage to Edward for Scotland, after formally ceding to England the eight counties of south-east Scotland. Balliol ruled a truncated Scotland from Perth, from where he put down the remaining resistance."
  • Or at least a brief summary of the rest of the struggle between Balliol and David II.
  • Done.
  • Also, the caption of the map at the end appears to be inaccurate, as both the text and the map description imply that Balliol never ruled all of the "blue" territory shown.
  • Reworded.
  • could some information be added about Berwick's fortifications, e.g. a sketch, or a brief description that?
  • Description added.
  • Is the strength of the garrison known, even approximately so? If not, then perhaps it should be explicitly mentioned in the text.
  • No. Several sources give the Scottish garrison of 1319 as 500, then don't quantify the 1333 garrison. Given this I am loath to guess/OR, or even say much. I suspect that there is a reason why none of the sources mention the number, but I don't know what it is.

Otherwise I cannot find anything amiss, although as said, my knowledge of the subject is limited. Well done. Constantine ✍ 09:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Thank you, appreciated. And thanks for the assessment. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the rapid response. My questions having been addressed, I am happy to support. Constantine ✍ 09:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/s by SN54129 edit

Well, Gog the Mild, I wondered why this was familiar! I came here to review, and, indeed, probably to support, as it's a fine piece of work; I can see why it was familiar. A D'OH moment from me too; far from being the reviewer I intended, I have landed rather in the position of being the co-author, so can hardly review my own work. Them's the breaks, I guess. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 11:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serial Number 54129. I guess that we all have those moments . Yes, you introduced Nicholson as a source and added a lot of material from him. I doubt that the article would be here without that, so a belated but heartfelt thank you. Yes, while the article is pining for an assessor, I don't think that a co-author would be allowed. Shame, that. Although if you do see scope for improvement, please flag it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from CPA-5 edit

Greetings here (again) let me see how I can help you. Let's start shall we?

  • Reign of Richard I of England?
Done.
Done.
  • I think the parliament of "The English parliament" should be capitalised this is the same issue as using crown or council capitalised because of the organisation or am I wrong?
I don't think that "parliament" is a proper noun, even in this context. I have checked two modern sources and they both have "English parliament", with a lower case p. So I propose leaving it.
  • Just a question but should "Pope John XXII" not have a reign too or shall I beter ask when his papacy did start? Because the Pope reigned a big stuck of Italy.
I've written and assessed several articles involving popes and as they are not monarchs they are not given regnal terms. Even during periods when, as you note, they rule large areas. Anyway, at this time they had been kicked out of Italy and held court at the French town of Avignon.
  • Good point, didn't realised it's in the same period when the siege took place, when the Pope wasn't in Rome at the moment.
  • “son of the governor” should be capitalised and become “son of the Governor”.
Done. Good spot.
  • The dot should be before the source at the “William Seton, son of the governor, drowned during this episode.” part
Done. Eagle eyed.
  • “The army the Guardian had spent so much time gathering was now compelled to take to the field, with all initiative lost.” Looks weird in
my view especially the “The army the Guardian” part, like first the Guardian is that a name of an organisation or is that a name of someone?
Because I couldn't find what the Guardian is in the page itself. Second one is, “The army the” part sounds weird to say or am I wrong?
Should it not be “The army and the Guardian" or be “The army's Guardian"? Can I get some explanation?
It comes from the earlier "In Scotland Archibald Douglas was Guardian of the Realm.." but I think you are right so I have changed it to “The army the Douglas had spent so much time gathering was now compelled to take to the field.” And deleted 'with all initiative lost'.
  • “the Scottish by King Henry VI.” Same as Richard I of England, reign please?
Done.

More Comments

  • "King Edward II of England (r. 1328–1350) attempted to recapture it in 1319 but abandoned the siege after a Scottish army bypassed him and advanced on York," King Edward II's reign is wrong he reigned between 1307 and 1327.
You are eagle eyed. Embarrassing that that got so far. Done.
  • "brought his regents, Isabella and Roger Mortimer, to the negotiating table." --> "brought his regents, Isabella and Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, to the negotiating table."
They are both linked. I don't think that it is necessary to list everyone's full titles at every mention.
  • "Berwick was to remain the military and political headquarters of the English on the border" --> "Berwick was to remain the military and political headquarters of the English on the border,"
It does need a comma, well picked up. But I have inserted it in a different place. See what you think.
  • "until its final re-capture by Richard, Duke of Gloucester in 1482." --> "until its final re-capture by Richard, Duke of Gloucester (and future King) in 1482." and the reign of the King too please.
Future king bit added. IMO the regnal years of a walk on character who wasn't a king at the time in question is more likely to confuse a reader than help, so I am going to skip this time if that's ok.
  • Note 5 "Based on Sumption" need a dot at the end.
Very good. Done.

I hope this was usefull I couldn't find anything else, goodluck. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @CPA-5 That's great. Thank you. Any other areas that weren't clear, or that you had to read twice to understand? (Like the Guardian bit.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Greetings Gog I just found some other issues (well I think they are). I hope they'll help you go further. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CPA-5 Thank you again. Let me know if you feel that it is now up to a standard where you can support its nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks nice and I think I can give you my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Zawed edit

  • I reviewed this article for GA, and assessing the changes since then, it looks even better. Happy to support for A-Class. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and Support by Cinderella157 edit

I have conducted a review of the sources and believe them to appropriate and sufficiently reliable. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Siege_of_Berwick_(1333)&oldid=867292341"