Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Dunbar (1650)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

Up front, not a subject matter expert so I may ask as many questions as I give comments!
Fire away.
  • "The Battle of Dunbar was a battle ..." never keen on "the X was an X" style opener. Perhaps just say "The Battle of Dunbar took place..."?
Fixed.
  • "the execution of his father, Charles I. Following Charles I's execution " repetitive.
Fixed.
  • "suffered heavy casualties" I think it may be worth noting how many in the lead for context.
Done.
  • David Leslie is linked to a different target in the infobox.
Fixed.
  • Why is Cromwell in bold in the infobox? See MOS:BOLD.
Fixed.
  • "Charles was also, ..." looong sentence. Consider split.
Split into three.
  • Two different links to Heads of Proposals...?
I am not seeing this.
"Newcastle propositions" and "Heads of Proposals".  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're getting at. The Newcastle propositions and the Heads of proposals are currently dealt with in a single article. Really, we should have separate articles on these two separate things, I might deal with that later. I've directed the first link to the relevant bit of the article for now - is that better? GirthSummit (blether) 17:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charles set sail to Scotland, landing on 23 June.[20] With Charles II on his way to a Scotland" again, a bit repetitive.
Rephrased.
  • "crossing the Tweed on 22 July.[24]" the lead says that 15,000 men did this, but that's not related in the main body?
"The New Model Army mustered on 22 July 1650, immediately prior to crossing into Scotland. The 8 infantry regiments, notionally of 1,200 men each, totalled 10,249. Their 7 cavalry regiments and several ancillary mounted units were slightly above their complement of 5,400. The artillery component numbered 640, giving the English a total of 16,345 fighting men at this point."
So 15,000 or 16,345? Sorry, perhaps I'm missing the point. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, if we are not being clear, that is our problem. GS wrote the lead and I think used a different source which didn't include the artillerymen. Even so, 16,345 is "over 15,000". But point taken and now changed to 'over 16,000'.
  • "8,000–10,000 infantry" infobox has 8,000–9,500 infantry.
Fixed.
  • "did withdraw, to the port of Dunbar.[28] The English army reached Dunbar " mildly repetitive again.
Fixed.
  • " the men arrived, according to one of its officers" reads odd to me, one of their officers?
Fixed.
  • Link Berwick.
Done.
  • Start of "Infantry" section has a lot of short sentences, makes for a choppy read.
Three shortish sentences: tweaked a bit, see what you think.
  • "consumption of a vast amount," of?
"keeping the slow match burning at all times resulted in the consumption of a vast amount" Is that really unclear?
A vast amount of the "slow match", I get it. It would make more sense (to me) to switch it, i.e. a vast amount of slow match was required to keep it burning at all times, but I get it. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To me, your suggestion gets the consequence before the cause and is likely to be difficult for a reader to unravel; but I am not that bothered either way.
  • "The pikemen also carried basic swords.[45] Pikemen typically wore a steel helmet, but no other armour.[" consider merging these two short sentences.
Done.
  • "c.1630 –40" -> "c. 1630 – 1640"
Fixed.
  • "less than 700 men" fewer. Etc.
Fixed.
  • "logistical" is linked on the second usage in the main body.
Fixed.
  • What is "provender"?
Changed to 'food'.
  • "Stuart Reid and Malcolm Wanklyn[31] believe t" odd/awkward ref placement.
Changed.
  • "a drakie nycht full of wind and weit" translation? a {something} night full of wind and wet?
It is in English! Translation added.
  • "[48][71][70][72]" order
Not required by any policy or guideline, but done.
  • "foul night " Shakespearean, not encyclopedian.
Rephrased. (Nb: "foul" is still used.)
  • "At approximately 4:00 am " perhaps reinforce "on 3 September" here.
Done.
  • " 5:00 with sunrise at 5:33," these need am.
Added.
  • Cannons get mentioned now, are those equivalent to field guns?
No; but in this usage yes. Used because 'field gun fire' would sound odd. I could use 'artillery fire'?
I'm just trying to alleviate any potential confusion for our readers who may not equate cannon with field gun. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Changed to 'The fire of the English field guns ...'
  • " Hamilton) in December.[115][119] ... In December ..." repetitive.
Language tweaked.
  • Link Perth.
Done.
  • ECML -> Main Line.
What?
Done
Done.
  • Any explanation as to why the battlefield is known as Battle of Dunbar II?
Because of Battle of Dunbar (1296), but it seemed off topic to start talking about a different battle on the most tenuous of reasons.
  • Ref 18 -> pp.
Done.

That's all I have. A throughly well-written piece of work, good stuff. I'll put it on hold while we zip through these. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: I'll have first crack at these. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TRM, just what we needed and much appreciated. Your comments above all addressed. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, crikey - that first crack seems to have addressed everything. ECML is East Coast Main Line - I'll fix that. I agree with artillery fire, but will leave that to your judgement, and for TRM to respond to your other queries. GirthSummit (blether) 15:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I think that is all of your follow up points covered. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with this now. Guys, this is beyond GA by a mark. Good luck at FAC, that's definitely where I'd expect to see this, like, tomorrow. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, many thanks. We were planning on running it through GoCE and then, ye indeed, sending it to FAC. Possibly we will see you there? Gog the Mild (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Dunbar_(1650)/GA1&oldid=970108628"