"... went to war with his Scottish subjects in the Bishops' Wars. These had arisen from the Scots' refusal to accept Charles's attempts to reform the Scottish Kirk to bring it into line with English religious practices." I would suggest specifying the "Scottish subjects" as the Covenanters movement and referring to them as Covenanters afterwards since Scottish royalists exist, for the sake of clarity.
It's true that Charles imagined that the Scottish people would rise up in support of him once he was on Scottish soil, but that didn't happen. The Scottish army that opposed the king was commissioned by the Scottish parliament. I believe therefore that 'his Scottish subjects' is accurate, and I think that changing it to say 'with the Covenanters' would give a false impression that it was some particular faction that he was fighting.
That's alright then. Though as an alternative, I would suggest elaborating the parliament's commission as well since it wasn't a generic England–Scotland war either; Scottish royalists seem to have been a non-insignificant part of it. Tayi ArajakateTalk13:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, there were Scottish nobles acting on behalf of the King, but no significant Scottish armies; Charles had an English army, and attempted to land forces from elsewhere on Scottish soil, but there was no Scottish army worth mentioning fighting on behalf of the king. There's quite a memorable story (I think it's in Woolrych) about Hamilton attempting to land an army at Leith, to be met by a crowd led by his own mother, pistol in hand, declaring that if he had a foreign army disembark on Scottish soil she would shoot him herself. You're right that it wasn't a normal England versus Scotland war; rather, it was a king who didn't understand the Scottish religious and political landscape attempting to enforce his will on a reluctant people. My fear is that go into it in sufficient detail to give the reader a proper understanding, we would essentially derail this article - I do feel it's better to sum it up in this way, and then allow the reader to find out more about that conflict by clicking on the link. (Note to self, and possible to GtM - Bishops' Wars could do with some attention at some point, it's quite thin.) GirthSummit (blether)14:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"... in part caused by Charles's defeat in the Bishops' Wars and his need to fund them, the relationship between Charles and his English Parliament also broke down in armed conflict ..." The "also" seems unnecessary and fund whom? If I'm not missing anything it isn't very clear from the citations; Bennett 2005 just mentions the year the conflict began and Bleiberg & Soergel 2005 mentions that the relationship broke down during negotiations over revenue shortages.
'fund them' means to fund the Bishops' Wars
I've removed 'also'
Alright but could the sourcing be improved here since from what I can see the Bishops' War isn't explicitly mentioned as having contributed to the shortage? Tayi ArajakateTalk13:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, I've commented on the issues below - could you look at this one, I think you wrote this bit and have access to the sources in question? Let me know if you want me to scour Woolrych or look at other sources. GirthSummit (blether)15:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. Unusually for us there seems to have been some confusion between the collaborators. At least, I got confused! Sorry GS. I have re-cited the offending sentence, which hopefully addresses the issue. But could we pause while Girth Summit checks? Having messed this up once, I am twitchy.
Gog the Mild I think what you've done in just removing that part of the sentence is the best approach - it's impossible to summarise the causes of the First English Civil War succinctly, and we don't really need to say why it happened here, just that it happened. Tayi Arajakate - I believe that this is the last of the outstanding issues, can you check to see whether we've missed anything? Thanks again for the very thorough review. GirthSummit (blether)15:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)After consultations with a leading expert on the period we have been informed "That if we are trying to boil down the 'causes of the First English Civil War' to a couple of sentences, we're on a hiding to nothing - it's got lots of causes, and scholars still argue about which are the most important." So I have gone with summary style and removed the bit on the Bishops' War and its funding.
"Royalists", "Parliamentarians", "English Parliament", etc are inconsistently capitalised and uncapitalised. In the titles of "king of England" and "king of Britain", the "king" should also be capitalised, and not when it's not part of a title.
Sloppy of me. I believe all uses of k/King are now in compliance with WP:JOBTITLES. Other capitalisation standardised. Note that in "all civil office-holders, parliamentarians and clerics", " A parliamentary committee" and "new parliamentary elections" the lower case p is deliberate.
Looks good in general, two instances of King of Britain and King of England each are still uncapitalised though, they would fall under point three of WP:JOBTITLES as they are addressed as the title itself. Tayi ArajakateTalk13:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"... declared his son, also Charles, king of Britain." This is a bit awkward to read, suggest using "Charles II" instead of "also Charles".
Done.
This is just a suggestion but I think the paragraph under prelude can just be moved under "English invasion of Scotland", it's a short section and there is already overlap with the first paragraph of the latter section.
Done.
"Their aim was to increase their forces to 36,000 men ..." This should be "over 36,000" per the citation.
True; done
"... Leslie had some 8,000–9,500 infantry and 2,000–3,000 cavalry ..." The 8,000 figure as the lower estimate is not present in the citation, it says that the number on foot was likely more even on both sides without providing a specific figure. Would it be possible to improve the sourcing here?
Bleh! I am not sure what has gone wrong here. The figures now match the source, with an an text warning over fluctuations to reflect the sources hand waving uncertainty.
"freedom of manoeuvre" Shouldn't this be "freedom to manoeuvre"? And shouldn't "if needs be" be "if need be"?
if needs be seems to be an acceptable but much less common usage, so I have changed it.
Alright, didn't realise "freedom to manoeuvre" was the less used form so no change required. "If needs be" is still unchanged in the article though. Tayi ArajakateTalk13:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. Done.
"What military support for Charles ..." This doesn't sound very encyclopedic, I would instead suggest something like "The sparse military support that existed for ..."
"A force of 1,500 gathered in Lancashire and from the Isle of Man and commanded by the Earl of Derby ..." Two repeated "and"s, I would suggest rephrasing.
Oops. Done.
"... would remain there until Charles II's restoration to the throne in 1660. Charles managed to escape to the continent." In this, I think the part about Leslie being imprisoned till 1660 should come at the end of the paragraph, otherwise it could sound like Charles escaped to the continent after restoration.
Good point. And it is basically trivia. So I have relegated it to a footnote.
The article consistently wikilinks outcomes of battles to the page of the respective battle without naming the battle in text itself which I think at times can be confusing especially for the smaller ones. In the same vein, I don't think terms like siege or rout need to be wikilinked being fairly commonly understood.
I would be happy to unlink the battles, but do not see the need to clutter the article with the full names of tangential engagements. Siege and rout unlinked. (In passing, I have been specifically asked to link both in past FACS; some reviewers don't understand WP:OVERLINK. I am pretty certain we will be asked to link "besiege" when this goes to FAC.)
I'd say the links to the specific battles are more relevant to the topic and should stay either way, but it can get a bit confusing on what links to what when say "attacked in force" and "outflanked" are both wikilinked if that makes sense so I'd just suggest delinking words such as outflanked, sacked, bombarded, choke point, etc since they all should be commonly understood or even simply intuitive in their use; I guess booty could be changed to loot or plunder. This isn't a big deal though and if you think it will cause problems at FAC, it can be left as is. Tayi ArajakateTalk13:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I lean very much towards your view, and if you want them out I will take them out and leave them out. But I can just imagine the puzzled tones of the FAC reviews as to why I have been unusually sloppy re linking.
In the lead "... exasperated by the duplicity of Charles ..." should be removed since it's not mentioned the body and the context not established in the lead.
Good spot. Rereading the source, we have unpacked the summary style in the main text a little and slightly tweaked the lead. See what you think.
"The Scots, commanded by David Leslie, retreated to Edinburgh and refused battle" The comma is unnecessary, suggest specifying it as a "pitched battle" as well.
I disagree, but if you could specify which one you mean we could then debate more precisely. Link added.
Sorry about that, I meant the first one. Also, I meant stating pitched battle in text itself.
The main sentence is "The Scots retreated to Edinburgh and refused battle" with "commanded by David Leslie" inserted as a sub clause and commaed off. I struggle to see how removing the first comma leaves a grammatical, or even meaningful, sentence. My collaborator will be more expert than me at going technical on this.
I agree with GtM here - this is a parenthetical phrase inserted into the main clause, commas are needed before and after it.
Leslie was refusing all battle, not just pitched ones. Besides, the standard phrase for the military tactic is refused battle, from to refuse battle. Eg see the last two entries on this page.
Also agree here 'refuse battle' is the usual way to describe this.
Alright I won't insist on it but for what its worth, to elaborate on my reasoning, I don't think removing the comma causes any grammatical issues, it would be a simple sentence where "The Scots commanded by David Leslie" would act as a single noun clause. Regarding the other one, Leslie was still engaging in raids i.e at Musselburgh and harassing them during their retreat to Dunbar, I think leaving it as is in the lead gives the impression that there was no confrontation at all. Tayi ArajakateTalk13:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article could do well with a map of the various locations and routes described in it.
Gog the Mild and Girth Summit, sorry for delaying this one so much. I've properly gone through the article now and it's more or less a good article as is. I have also responded to the replies above and added a few remaining points, note most of the points are either just suggestions or very minor issues. There are a couple places where sourcing may need to be improved, including the seventh point by the way which hasn't been addressed. Tayi ArajakateTalk13:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"After in-fighting between factions in Parliament and the army, Cromwell ruled over the Protectorate as Lord Protector until his death in 1658." It isn't entirely clear in this sentence that the Commonwealth and the Protectorate are the same.
Yes, this is fine in my view. The Protectorate refers to the governance of the Commonwealth by a Lord Protector - it didn't replace the Commonwealth, it was just a new way of governing it. GirthSummit (blether)14:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"General George Monck, still governor of Scotland ..." Monck becoming the governor is not mentioned before this.
It was copy edited out somewhere. As was his Wikilink! Wikilink added. Let me find a source for his term as governor. GS?
Hmm. I'm not certain that 'still governor' is the right way of putting this. Cromwell left Monck behind with 5,000 men to pacify Scotland when he went down to squash Charles at Worcester, but after the fighting was done Monck didn't stay in Scotland - he went down to Bath for some R&R, before taking to sea as naval general in the First Anglo-Dutch War in 1653. He was then sent to Scotland as commander-in-chief in 1654 to suppress the Glencairn's rising (Woolrych, p=572); later, while remaining commander-in-chief of the armed forces, he was appointed to the ten-strong council that Cromwell appointed to govern Scotland in 1655, acting as right-hand-man to the council's president, Lord Broghill. (Woolrych, p=590) So, I think we could replace 'still governor' with 'then commander-in-chief of the army in Scotland'? GirthSummit (blether)15:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completed overlooked one thing, the templates. The article has an English Civil Wars template but the topic of the article doesn't directly fall under them so it should be removed. In the same vein, there's a small battle (Upton) before Worcester listed in the English invasion of Scotland (1650) template, could a line mentioning it be added in the article? Tayi ArajakateTalk12:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good point. Campaignbox swapped. Re Upton, no. Someone has fairly pointlessly split off Upton from Battle of Worcester based entirely on a 1905 source. There is no policy nor guideline reason for including all the trivia people stuff into campaignboxes in the main article (happy to be corrected on this) and I don't see that it needs to be mentioned on its own merits.
Looks good now. Re Upton, my concern was regarding comprehensiveness, if it is largely not considered a distinct battle from Worchester then it doesn't need a separate mention. Tayi ArajakateTalk12:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pass