Talk:Burnt Candlemas

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Burnt Candlemas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 16:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Will review. I think this will be review #302 for me. Hog Farm _Talk 16:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hog Farm, great edit summary. I am considering taking this to FAC, so feel free to be harsh. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry it took a couple days to get to this. My work schedule is somewhat unpredictable right now.

• "In 1332 he back a rival claimant to the Scottish throne, Edward Balliol," - backed?

Oops. Done.

• " The Scots were decisively beaten at the Battle of Neville's Cross and their king,[13] David II was captured" - shouldn't there be a comma after David II because the clause is an appositive

There should. Done.

• "The English military focus was very much on France:[19] As well as Edward's planned campaign. his son, the Black Prince, was about to lead an attack in south-west France" - there are multiple things in here that stand out to me as possible punctuation/capitalization issues - the colon, "As well as Edward's planned campaign" following the colon awkwardly, and then the sentence starting with "his son, the Black Prince" beginning with a lowercase letter

Gah! It was a mess. Rewritten. Hopefully in English.

• " the separate fortress of Berwick castle" - looks like the redlink should go to Berwick Castle

Got my cases wrong. Fixed. Thanks..

• " even allowing them to take with them what plunder they could carry" - this seems unusual. Was there a special reason why

It wasn't that uncommon. (Eg see the last paragraph of "Second siege" of my Siege of Breteuil which took place later the same year.) Unfortunately no source explains why, but it will be because Edward wanted them out of the way fast so he could get on with his invasion, not trapped into a potentially time-consuming nothing-to-lose, to-the-last-man stand.

• "perhaps to be crowned King of Scotland at the nearby Scone" - use of "the" suggests a specific object, while the link goes to a city. Is Stone of Scone the specific object?

It is, but I seem to have garbled this in the copy edit. "the" removed.

• I'm a little rusty on my Roman numerals, but the range cited for Wagner 2006b starts with xxxix (which I think is 39), while Wagner 2006b p. xxxvii (I think that's 37) is cited. Recommend expanding the page range in the long citation

I typoed an extra "x" in. The range should start with xxix - 29. Fixed. That is very eagle eyed of you.

• Sourcing looks comprehensive - the best source I can find looking around online that isn't used is a journal article from 1916, and I doubt that it's gonna be very useful due to it's age.

Rankin is interesting, but focuses on the fate of the church at Whitekirk, so isn't much use, even ignoring its age.

Excellent work; I'd anticipate supporting at FAC. Hog Farm _Talk 00:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I was a bit ummy as to whether there was enough meat on this for FAC, so I hoped that you might opine. As you point out there isn't - SFAIAA - much available that I haven't included, so I shall probably give it a punt. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't think there would be any problems. Battle of Powick Bridge got through with two paragraphs about the battle, and 4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) got through with what I thought was a pretty easy FAC despite being less than 1400 words long. I'd be surprised if it didn't pass. (Although I should probably note that that's coming from someone who's thinking about trying the rather bare Capture of Sedalia after the Wikicup ends [or I get eliminated, as I'm below the cut line for the round for now]) Hog Farm _Talk 17:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Hog Farm. All done, I hope. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The C of E (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1356 an English army devastated Lothian in Scotland so thoroughly the episode became known as Burnt Candlemas? Rogers, Clifford (2014) [2000]. War Cruel and Sharp: English Strategy under Edward III, 1327–1360. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press. p. 339. ISBN 978-0-85115-804-4.

• Reviewed: Lilliane Brady
• Comment: Suggestions for alternate hooks would be welcome.

Improved to Good Article status by Gog the Mild (talk). Self-nominated at 12:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC).

Interesting history, GA on fine sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. - It remains a bit unclear to me how the whole campaign came to be called Burnt Candlemas. The hook works for me, though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda Arendt. It is currently at FAC, so feel free to pursue any perceived lack of clarity over the name there. My explanations are often over brief. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)