Talk:Capture of Wakefield/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 21:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may take me a day or two to get started on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:General Thomas Fairfax (1612-1671) by Robert Walker and studio.jpg needs a US PD tag. Also, the link to the source seems to be dead.
- Added the tag and updated the source link. Harrias ^talk 18:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you standardise your use of hyphens in ISBNs.
- Done. Harrias ^talk 18:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding alt text.
- Done. Harrias ^talk 18:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Goring should be mentioned as the Royalist commander in the first sentence, and linked at first mention.
- Done. Harrias ^talk 18:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the Prelude, could you specify which war the article is referring to.
- Done. Harrias ^talk 18:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"After reinforcing" → 'After being reinforced'?
- Good suggesting. Changed. Harrias ^talk 18:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You use "army" to describe a force of 1,500 men. Do the sources consistently do this? Similarly for the Royalists.
- Offhand, I don't know. But the definition of army is "an organized military force equipped for fighting on land", does that not apply? Harrias ^talk 18:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By that definition an infantry squad could be termed an army. Earlier you refer to "acting as the rearguard to the army ... " which makes it appear that (this) Fairfax's force is a detachment from it. And there is usually an anticipation of an army being over a minimum size; this is flexible, but to me it would need to be well over 1,500 - unless you can trump this by a consensus of the sources.

I can accept that. I've gone through and replaced each use for the smaller hosts, including one occasion where I reworked the sentence slightly. Harrias ^talk 21:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"1,000 infantry and 500 horse, split into eight troops of cavalry and three troops of dragoons" Just checking, the "three troops of dragoons" includes all "1,000 infantry", yes?
- The dragoons were included in the horse, but I can see the ambiguity. Would it be better if I used "1,000 foot and 500 horse, split.."? Harrias ^talk 18:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a habit of asking rhetorical questions; let me know if you find it irritating. I would suggest two sentences: '... 1,000 infantry and 500 horse. The horse were split into eight troops of cavalry and three troops of dragoons.'

No, it's all good. Anything that tightens up my language is good. Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 21:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the Warrengate barricade was overwhelmed by Gifford's foot, who were then able to capture a cannon and turn it on the barricade" I am confused. If the barricade "was overwhelmed", why was it subsequently necessary to turn a cannon on it?
- A fair point, loose language here. I've reworked this slightly, does it work better? Harrias ^talk 18:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"but reputedly led a counterattack" Why "reputedly"? Does one of the sources question whether it happened? It is stated as a fact in the lead.
- He definitely led a counterattack, it's the nightshirt bit that is more tenuous. I've flipped it around, how's that? Harrias ^talk 18:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest either 'but led a counterattack, reputedly "in his nightshirt"' or "but led a counterattack on horseback, reputedly "in his nightshirt"'

Changed to the latter. Harrias ^talk 21:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link colours.
- Ah, that's where the link is. Couldn't find it for looking. Harrias ^talk 18:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"his army only lost "not above seven men" " Delete "only".
- Good spot. Removed. Harrias ^talk 18:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Their primary objective of the attack was successful" "Their" → 'The'.
- Done. Harrias ^talk 18:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"his immediate release and exchange" Either 'his immediate release' or 'his immediate exchange'.
- Fair point, done. Harrias ^talk 18:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No losses in the infobox?
- Honestly, numbers in the Civil War, particularly for the less notable engagements are prone to exaggeration in both directions because of the sheer amount of propaganda, so I don't really like to include them in such a prominent place. Harrias ^talk 18:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly work with the Hundred Years' War, so I know what you mean. Consider 'Heavy' and 'Light', but entirely up to you.

Ha, fair enough. To be honest, just looking back through the sources I have at the moment for this (and I'll be honest, this was only meant to be a quick stub expansion that I then got carried away with, so I haven't exhausted the sources, by any means), I only have the "not above seven men" from Fairfax for the Parliamentarians, and no given figures of losses or casualties at all for the Royalists. One would assume the Royalists took quite heavy losses, but it isn't explicitly written anywhere that I've seen. Harrias ^talk 21:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the review; I have responded to each of your points so far. Harrias ^talk 18:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A really nice little article. A couple of minor issues left above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can I ask if you found the three Fairfaxes issue okay? I got myself in a muddle a couple of times writing it, and just want to make sure that it is clear enough? Harrias ^talk 21:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine work. Promoting. IMO it would not take much work at all for this to be ready for ACR. Fairfaxes - no, it seemed clear; although I may not be the best reader to test that on, having some familiarity with their multiplicity. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed