Talk:Battle of Dupplin Moor/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 10:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review this article. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mention the involvement of 'English allies' in the infobox, but it is only implied in the lede when you say and tacitly supported an attempt to place Balliol on the Scottish throne. Maybe you need to briefly explain their participation and where they came from.

Good point. The lead says "a largely English force". I have added some background on why they were backing Balliol.

On the image showing the location of the battle, it might be worth including the location of some important cities, such as Perth.

Done.

You say 'Robert Bruce', but isn't his full name 'Robert the Bruce'?

As the Wikipedia article states, he was recorded contemporaneously as variously: Medieval Gaelic: Roibert a Briuis; Modern Scottish Gaelic: Raibeart Brus; Norman French: Robert de Brus or Robert de Bruys; Early Scots: Robert Brus; Latin: Robertus Brussius. Modern sources describe him formally as "Robert I" and less formally as "Robert Bruce", eg Sumption, DeVries, Rogers.

the Scots selected Donald, Earl of Mar, as the new guardian wouldn't is be easier to say he was the regent? Also, any background on Donald, was he a soldier?

Easier in what way? I assume you mean because I have used "regent" earlier, without further explanation. That was sloppy of me. The title of the office is "Guardian of Scotland" and it is referred to as this in the sources. I have clarified in the text. Thanks for that.

Added a little background.

and hoped he would come over to him, with many of his troops I'm not sure if this means 'come over to his side' (be an ally) or 'come over to talk to him'?

Possibly an EngVar uasage; or possibly I am starting to write in 14th century English. Tweaked.

Mar withdrew to the capital, Perth, amalgamated the survivors of Kinghorn no mention that Mar was present at the previously described engagement.

Correct. He wasn't.

The Scots were enormously stronger than the English perhaps just 'greatly outnumbered'?

I am not wedded to "enormously stronger", but as the lowest estimate of numerous sources gives the Scots a considerably better than ten to one superiority (and the commonest a 26 to 1 advantage) i prefer something stronger than "greatly outnumbered".

Who is 'Rogers' (needs introducing)

Gah! Sorry. Introduced earlier, but in a footnote! Fixed.

Those Scots not killed or captured fled I understand what is being said here, but it doesn't sound quite right. Maybe needs to be rephrased or punctuation added.

Really? OK. Changed to "Those Scots who had not been killed or captured fled." Any better?

I suppose it doesn't really matter. You can go back to the previous version if you like. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any details on how many Scots were killed or fled from this camp?

Sadly not. No one even guesses. But given that it all took place in the dark and was swiftly followed by a greater disaster I am not surprised.

A little more on who Fulk FitzWarin is? Without hovering over the link to see he was a baron, I might have presumed he wasn't much more than a well-spoken soldier.

Correct. In fact about the only thing he was/is known for is this speech. Given that there are minority views that the speech was made by others - I am guessing that everyone wanted to claim the credit - I have made this a little broader.

Balliol, publicly claimed that the English having crossed the Earn unhindered was due to treachery by Mar presumably these accusations were made just before the battle. It might be worth saying so. Also, how could they be made publicly when they're on the battlefield?

Tweaked.

The sources don't say. *OR alert* I can easily imagine a battlefield conference of the senior commanders at first light where an astounded and disgruntled Bruce sarcastically asks if the English got across because Mar was incompetent or because he was in league with them, or some such scenario. */OR alert*.

Can't find any issues with the details of the battle. Very nicely written.
Wikilink to squires

Done.

There's some space between the 'casualties' and 'aftermath' section. I can't see how to fix this.

Fixed.

Any details for the number of Scot soldiers captured?

No. Which is a little surprising. They are usually listed in tedious detail in the chronicles. I assume that this means that there were virtually no prisoners, but that is OR.

having gathered to him the remnants of Mar's army I've never heard the phrase 'gathered to him'. Just checking if this is fine?

It is, but if it interrupts a reader's concentration it is probably best removed, so deleted.

and the ships which had landed his army defeated the Scottish navy you pass over this quickly, so I'm presuming it was a very small engagement which hasn't been written about?

No nobles, so I am surprised that it got a contemporay mention at all. Modern sources give it a single sentence. Even the ever reliable Rodger (The Safeguard of the Sea: A Naval History of Britain. 660–1649) discusses the battle without mentioning this[?]

In any event, before long the Scottish host had exhausted its own supplies what does 'Scottish host' mean in this context?

From Wiktionary "A multitude of people arrayed as an army". A conventional way of describing a very large army.

had started with Balliol's invasion finally ended in 1357 you might want to specifically refer to 'Balliol's invasion' as the Battle of Dupplin Moor for clarity.

But it didn't. It started with the the Battle of Kingsholm - the one when Balliol was partway through disembarking.

Sir Charles Oman says of Dupplin: "The Battle of Dupplin formed..." I suggest changing this to Sir Charles Oman says that "The Battle of Dupplin formed..."

Oops. Done.

I don't see any mention of the location of the battle being 'Dupplin Moor' in the article. You include a section on the location of the battle, but there is no mention in that of Dupplin Moor either. I'm quite confused, because it makes the name of the battle seem somewhat made up, if that makes sense.

Yep. I know what you mean. So far as I can find, the name Dupplin Moor has fallen out of use. There is a Dupplin Loch nearby and a Dupplin Castle. The Historic Environment Scotland refers to the general area as "Dupplin" and gives a "Dupplin plateau". I suspect them of ORing, but it is a solid source, so I have added a mention to the "Location". Will that do?

References

There's a source where I can still see curly brackets which needs to be fixed.

Removed

Other than that, the rest look fine.

I'll place this article on hold for you to address the comments. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: thanks for addressing the issues. A final skim read and it looks good to go. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose checked and any issues addressed and copyedits made. No spelling mistakes.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lede is fine. MOS adhered to.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yes, everything in the article is sufficiently referenced
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sources are reliable. Even better they're books so no questions here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All good here
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's copyvio detector shows up nothing of note.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Well-covered. the battle is described in detail and there is sufficient content on the background and aftermath.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Very stable
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Looks fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images used appropriately and sparingly.
	7. Overall assessment.	Well deserved. Happy editing. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]