This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
We cannot say with any certainty just how many men died at Halidon, and the fact that detailed figures are mentioned 'on several web sites' is not evidence. It should not need saying but it clearly does: fictions are in the habit of self-duplification. I must have read every contemporary source on this battle, one of which claims that the Scots lost 35,000 men, probably two or even three times the size of the army Douglas was able to put in the field. The figure of 14 dead for the English is suspiciously precise. All medieval chroniclers should be treated with caution, especially when it comes to the size of armies and battle casualties; but they should at least form the point of departure for informed discussion; not 'several web sites'.
Rcpaterson23:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again Mr. Paterson has made a useful and well-informed contribution. Chronicle acconts generally offer numnbers that were not intended to be taken literally - BArbour's estimantes of the armies at Bannockburn being a particularly clear example. CB.
Agreed. The casualties at Halidon Hill, as at most mediaeval battles, are largely speculative. English casualties would best be described as "unknown but light", and Scottish as "unknown but heavy". Wikipedia needs to show some consistency in this matter, particularly in the summary box. Discussion of contemporary and modern estimates might be appropriate in the full article, but these are inevitably personal assessments (which are often skewed by authorial bias) rather than actual data.
Hello Gog the Mild, I will be taking up the review for this nomination and will present it to you shortly. I hope you will find my feedback to be helpful. Tayi ArajakateTalk20:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, I've completed the review. I've highlighted some issues and made some suggestions below, see the comments and assessment section. Once the issues are fixed and/or resolved, I'll promote it to a good article. Other than those, the article is generally well researched and presented so good work on it! Tayi ArajakateTalk14:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the background section, the line "[T]he Scots were crushed at the Battle of Dupplin Moor" could sound confusing with respect to which side it is referring to. I would suggest using either "The Scottish Army" or "David's forces". Same goes for the next line, which can sound like both the sides suffered heavy casualties.
I have added "predominately English" to clarify the make up of Balliol's army and restructured the first sentence to make it clearer who was crushed. This being so, I think that who lost thousands in the next sentence is now clear from context.
It is clear now.
"Berwick is astride the main invasion and trade route in either direction." Shouldn't it be "astride of the" and "the trade route"?
No. The first would not be grammatical while the latter would be but would suggest that the invasion route and the trade route were in different places. Which in this case they weren't, hence my formulation.
Alright.
In the beginning of the prelude section, I would also suggest placing the 3rd line after the line (5th) about Berwick being the most successful trading town in Scotland, otherwise the 4th and 5th lines don't sound like they are contemporary references.
My display won't show lines as numbering the same as yours. Are you suggesting that I reverse the order of the two sentences: "According to William Edington, a bishop and chancellor of England, Berwick was "so populous and of such commercial importance that it might rightly be called another Alexandria, whose riches were the sea and the water its walls". It was the most successful trading town in Scotland, and the duty on wool which passed through it was the Scottish Crown's largest single source of income."? (If so, I don't see the need, but have no objection to doing so.)
Sorry about that, by line I meant sentence. The 3rd sentence being "[I]n the Middle Ages, it was the gateway from Scotland to the English eastern march." I think it should come after "[A]ccording to William Edington, a bishop and chancellor of England, Berwick was "so populous and of such commercial importance that it might rightly be called another Alexandria, whose riches were the sea and the water its walls". It was the most successful trading town in Scotland, and the duty on wool which passed through it was the Scottish Crown's largest single source of income." Since the 3rd sentence is more generalised about the middle ages, it makes Edington sound like someone from a different (later? even modern) period and the next sentence becomes ambiguous in terms of time period.
Done.
The first line of "Berwick under siege" should mention 10 March 1333 since the year isn't mentioned beforehand.
Oops. Done. Thank you.
Recommend using "supplied" rather than "revictualled".
Done.
"... he assembled army north of the border." Needs an "an" before the "army".
It does, it does. Done.
"Minor raids into Cumberland were launched by Sir Archibald Douglas, which were insufficient to draw the English forces from the siege but gave Edward III a pretext for his invasion." In this line, Archibald Douglas is wikilinked for a second time and that too, to a different person. Just referring to him as "Douglas" should be enough without the wikilinking, and his title "Sir" should be mentioned in the previous line instead of this one.
Ah, that was a bit of a mess. Resolved and thank you again.
I would suggest using "battaile" as an alternative instead of "battle".
Why? Is there a problem with the common English expression? It is the one the sources use. Wiktionary defines battaile as an "Obsolete spelling of battle".
Sorry I should have been clearer, I meant this for the use of "battle" in the context of divisions (e.g, " ... assailed the battle of Henry Beaumont", "... Scottish schiltrons engaged the English battles ...", etc). It might be confusing for those who don't thoroughly read the article, since as far as I know "battle" isn't commonly understand anywhere (other than I suppose for who are already knowledgeable in medieval European history?) in this context.
I think that I understood your point. I have defined the term in line towards the start of the "Battle" section - "with his men-at-arms and spearmen in three divisions or "battles" arrayed in an arc" - so I would have thought that a reader would need a remarkably poor memory to become confused four paragraphs later.
If you insist on keeping it and since it is defined in the article, I won't press on it but do consider that many readers may only go through certain parts of the article and skim others so it is possible to miss it.
Changed to "division".
"The prudent course of action for the Scots would have been to withdraw and wait for a better opportunity to fight, but this would guarantee the loss of Berwick." Since this is somewhat of a "what if", I think it needs to be attributed.
I don't usually attribute things in text which are subject to scholarly consensus, but I suspect that you are correct that this needs some further in line explanation. So I have quoted three of the leading supporters of this view. Is that better?
That is a lot better, so yes.
"Therefore Douglas, a little after noon, ordered an assault. I would suggest just rephrasing this line to "Doughlas ordered the assault, a little after noon."
I have removed the "Therefore". Why do you suggest reversing the other two clauses?
That's better but I think the sentence breaks the flow of reading, it's small one with a lot of pauses. Also, now I think the sentence itself should come before "[M]odern historians agree ...".
Ah. I have gone with "A little after noon Douglas ordered an assault."
That's alright but I think it needs to go before the above mentioned sentence regardless of the order of clauses because at present there's a sentence present before it that already mentions the assault, i.e "Rogers states that "it may seem surprising" that the Scots attacked even under these circumstances."
No, I prefer it where it is. I take your point, but it would mean stepping away from the chronology to what modern scholars say, and then back again. Which I feel would confuse a reader. And it would end the subsection on a modern quote, rather than an action from the events which, IMO, sets up a reader for the next subsection.
I suppose that does make sense, so alright.
I could not find any instance of original research from the sources I could access so I'm going to assume there's none with respect to the others either. But, I have one question regarding a particular line, "[A]s a matter of national pride Douglas felt obliged to come to the relief of Berwick." National pride in the 14th century?
Very much so. Especially re Anglo-Scottish rivalry. But, on checking, I may have got carried away in my paraphrasing as I am struggling to find the support of a source re "national pride" as a factor in this specific action. Oops! So I have watered it down. Thanks for causing me to recheck that.
Since, the infobox describes it as an "English-Disinherited victory", it should also identify the disinherited as a belligerent and Edward Balliol as a commander.
Good point. A "helpful" drive by editor changed the infobox and I didn't spot it. Disinherited removed.
Why add Balliol? He was not a co-commander, but a subordinate. If I include him because he commanded one of the English battles I should include Beaumont and several Scots to be consistent. This would, IMO, unnecessarily clutter the infobox.
Removing disinherited works as well. Although I do think an argument can be made for including it, Balliol's subordinate status could be displayed by using a bullet point or line, he does stand out in a way, in that he isn't a subject of Edward III unlike the others and becomes the ruler of Scotland as a result of the battle. That said, its just my preference, in general I think complex infoboxes can be more accurate representations.
Ah, the perennial informative v clarity trade off. I lean very much to the clarity side of this, so I hope that you will permit me to go with the commanders, rather than all of the commanders. (I agree that they "can be more accurate", but also feel they are less comprehensible.)
Of course, I will permit it. It doesn't disqualify an article from meeting the good article criteria either way.
The casualties in the infobox appear quite extraordinary. I would recommend using only modern estimates for the casualties in the infobox; i.e, "2,900 dead, hundreds captured" and "Low".
"extraordinary" in what way. Every modern RS accepts the 7-14 figures. Every one also accepts that the Scottish losses were in the thousands. The figure of 2,900 is not a consensus; but one, Scottish, contemporary account which a single modern scholar picks out as noteworthy in a footnote, while parenthesising "[the source] also says that the total number killed was 40,000". Note my deliberate use of "suggests" and "may" in the article.
In passing, this sort of discrepancy was not unusual for battles of the period and is accepted by modern scholars. At the much studied Battle of Crecy in 1346, where the French gave the English a much more difficult time than the Scots did, English losses are accepted as either 40 or 300. A typical modern estimate of French dead (excluding wounded) is 12,000.
Alright, the 1961 Scottish Historical Review citation does seem to accept the 7-14 figure and I can't access the other two citations so I'll take it at your word. You do seem to be correct about the discrepancies being not unusual which is a bit striking.
I am more than happy to email scans, but, really, while some battles were bloody slogging battles many were amazingly one sided. To pick another of my recent FAs at almost random, at the Battle of Sluys in 1340 the English lost 400–600 killed, the French 16,000-20,000. Again the figures are accepted by a consensus of modern scholars.
Nah, that's not necessary, it checks out from what I can see and I haven't seen a reason to doubt it.
I would also suggest using a map to depict the location of the battle alongside neighboring locations mentioned in the article instead of the monument, or even one of the images in the body could be more illustrative.
Monument image moved. Map added to lead.
User:Tayi Arajakate, many thanks for your eagle-eyed review of this. You have picked up several instances of me being sloppy, which is appreciated. I have addressed all of your concerns above and look forward to your further comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had missed a small one, regarding the line "[M]any of the figures given are clearly greatly exaggerated ...". The "clearly" seems unnecessary. Tayi ArajakateTalk19:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Deleted.
Tayi Arajakate, that was a thorough and insightful a GAN review as I can remember getting. For what it is worth you seem to me to be reviewing at or above the upper end of GAN reviewers - this is not a complaint (this is heading straight for FAC so I appreciate it} but a personal observation. A couple of thoughts: 1. Why do you not do more reviewing at FAC, your talents would be very much appreciated there. 2. Do you accept requests? I usually have a flow of a GAN or two a month, nearly always heading for FAC, and the sort of going over which you have given this GAN would be just what they need.
Gog the Mild, I don't know, I might get more into FAC in the future but I think good articles has more of a reviewer shortage at present and I want to ensure that the ones that do get promoted are well.. good. Also, I'm not that comfortable reviewing a FAC before getting an article to FA standard myself. I have no issues taking requests for GAN reviews so feel free to bring them to me, with the caveat that there might be times when I do end up rejecting some.
Regarding this nomination, the issues have almost all been resolved so I'll promote the article now. I've also responded to some of the comments above, do note the 10th bullet point which is the only one that I think still needs to be fixed. Tayi ArajakateTalk08:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tayi Arajakate, many thanks for your work on this. It is now much improved. There are a couple of new comments from me above.
FAC also has a chronic reviewer shortage, and there nominations do get archived if they don't attract sufficient reviews in a timely fashion. But as a FAC coordinator I have a vested interest . We usually encourage people to review a few (6 or 8 ish) FACs before nominating one of their own. There is nothing like actually being inside a system to foster an understanding of it. And the goodwill generated with regular nominators/reviewers may help your nomination to gain reviews rapidly enough to avoid being archived "for lack of interest". But this is not obligatory and will not suit everyone. What are you thinking of bringing to FAC?
Introduction, second paragraph: "By mid-July, knowing Berwick was on the verge of surrender and aware they were much stronger than the English, the Scots attacked". Suggest "...believing they were much stronger", or perhaps "...knowing they had the numerical advantage". After all, the decisive defeat means it turns out they were not, in fact, "much stronger". I am simply unqualified to know what (if any) is the proper edit so I'm deferring. 108.26.143.223 (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The stronger force does not always win. The lead ("Introduction") is a summary of the main points of the article. Where the army sizes are discussed. A modern historian opines that the Scots had about 15,000 combatants and the English a lot fewer than 10,000, possibly being outnumbered two-to-one; possibly before detaching a large force to guard Berwick. This is all cited to reliable sources. To summarise this as the Scots being "aware they were much stronger than the English" seems reasonable. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
. We usually encourage people to review a few (6 or 8 ish) FACs before nominating one of their own. There is nothing like actually being inside a system to foster an understanding of it. And the goodwill generated with regular nominators/reviewers may help your nomination to gain reviews rapidly enough to avoid being archived "for lack of interest". But this is not obligatory and will not suit everyone. What are you thinking of bringing to FAC?
Pass