Talk:Battle of Inverkeithing/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 03:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A little different from the topics you've been working on while I've been reviewing. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, I am getting stale on the Punic Wars, so have been looking at a few other things. This one is a follow on to the August collaboration FAC Battle of Dunbar (1650). Gog the Mild (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"concerned that their Godly war would be corrupted by feelings of personal loyalty to the King" - Not sure about British English, but in American English, godly would generally be lowercase in this context.

Done.

From what I can tell, the city of Dunbar itself is only ever linked.

Good spot. Fixed.

Maybe this is covered by "although these numbers fluctuated during the course of the campaign", but it seems like there was large fluctuations. When Cromwell entered Scotland, we're given an upper bound of 12,500 men. The first purge gets rid of many men, and the second gets rid of at least 4,080, leaving around 8,000 at maximum. Yet at Dunbar, the Scots are back up to 12,000. Likely a comprehension problem on my end, but I interpreted "these numbers fluctuated" as a bit less extreme than 1/3 of the army. I understand this may not be known, like with some of my obscure CSA unit articles, but do the sources quantify how great the fluctuations were?

No they don't. At all. The Scots weren't exactly great record keepers. I reckon that your Confederates were models by comparison. They were recruiting even faster than they were purging, but the only numbers quoted are at the start of the war, at Dunbar and when the Scots marched south. And I wouldn't personally trust any of them too far.

" In January 1651 the English attempted to outflank the Scottish-held choke point of Stirling" - Personally, I think it would be best to mention that Stirling was a choke point when the defense of Stirling is first mentioned.

I wondered about that. Done.

"and 500 Highlanders led by Hector Maclean of Duart;" - Move the Highlander link up to where you're talking about Highland chiefs earlier?

Done.

" shadowing the Scottish army while leaving Monck with 6,000 of the least experienced men to mop up what Scottish resistance remained" - Can we get an introduction for Monck?

Oops. He is such a figure later in the period that I forgot. Done.

Worth mentioning in the article that the site is a designated battlefield?

Oof. I would rather not, but done.

Is the external link a high-quality RS? It includes some different takes on the loss figures: that Balfour stated that both sides suffered similar losses, and that the other casualty estimates are based exclusively off of English sources. The source goes on to say This account might not be correct but there is no intrinsic reason to privilege the official casualty figures promoted by Cromwell over this other set of figures, so maybe Balfour's estimation of English losses is also worth noting.

The omission is deliberate. Yes, Historic Environment Scotland is an RS, but there is no way that both sides suffered equal casualties. The Scots lost Browne, Duart and four regimental commanders killed. No English officer is even recorded as seriously wounded. The Scots were chased for six miles and had an infantry regiment and the Highlanders wiped out. Balfour was inflating the English losses on the basis of no knowledge. More to the point, the three print sources which I have seen mention Balfour's estimate of Scottish losses do not pass on his estimate of English casualties, even to dismiss; they seem to consider it too ridiculous to even bother knocking down.

While check image licensing after work tonight. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm, swift thorough work as usual. Your comments to date all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]