Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of the North Inch

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: rejected by Cowlibob (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Battle of the North Inch

(

)

... that in 1396 a trial by combat was arranged between the Scottish clans of Clan Chattan against the Clan Cameron or Clan Davidson? Source: James Browne's A History of the Highlands and of the Highland Clans, Volume 1 pages 153-156
- ALT1:... that in 1396 thirty Scottish warriors on each side fought each other in a trial by combat and that only twelve men survived the battle? Source: James Browne's A History of the Highlands and of the Highland Clans, Volume 1 pages 153-156
- ALT12:... that in 1396, two clans of as few as thirty warriors each fought each other in a trial by combat, and only twelve men survived? Source: James Browne's A History of the Highlands and of the Highland Clans, Volume 1 pages 153-156

Created/expanded by QuintusPetillius (talk). Self-nominated at 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC).

WP:DYKCHECK shows that the article has not been expanded 5x (see WP:DYK#Eligibility criteria). Please let me know if you believe this to be incorrect.

I'd be happy to give some feedback, regardless:

~~The hook should be tweaked to add the "a" to the link (i.e. "...his court arranged a trial by combat) to avoid the potential WP:EGG of a reader expecting the link to trial by combat.~~ Y Resolved; hook amended. MIDI (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The article states that the King insisted the parties end their feud "amicably", and that the proposal for the trial by combat came from the two chiefs. The original hook implies the King was more involved than being a spectator. This may be clarified in the citation (currently Ref #11) but it's offline so I cannot verify (being an offline reference isn't necessarily a problem in itself) (applies to original hook only) Y Resolved; hook amended. MIDI (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The article makes it clear that one of the sides may not have been Clan Cameron. (applies to original hook only) Y Resolved; hook amended. MIDI (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Although it's not WP:SYN, there's (currently) a bit of extra reading needed to extrapolate the numbers—clearly, there is a reference given for 29 + 19 deaths (although this says the opponents to Clan Chattan was the Davidsons). There isn't an inline ref (unless it's the one a few sentences after) for there being 30 people on each side (and it appears not all accounts agree). It's all there in the Brown source—30 vs 30 on page 154 ("...they adopted the singular idea of deciding their quarrel by a combat of thirty against thirty."); 29 + 19 deaths on page 156 ("...twenty nine of the Davidsons had fallen [...] nineteen of Cluny's men also bit the dust..."). Y Resolved; references clarified. MIDI (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Article expansion aside, just a few referencing improvements would make ALT1 eligible. MIDI (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Replying to comment on my talk page: The first paragraph of the "Battle" section is only supported by one footnote. Because of this, it is not clear to which statement the footnote applies, or if it is a citation for the entire paragraph. If that footnote does support the entire paragraph, that's absolutely fine (and I presume this is the case). However, if this is the case, it means there is an unreferenced statement in there (Brown does not support the "Although the numbers involved in the battle have been increased by various historians" statement). MIDI (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have changed the line in the Battle section of the article to that the numbers have been "variously reported" specific to as be what is said on page 154 of the book being quoted as source for the whole paragraph. I hope that this is sufficient. Thanks.QuintusPetillius (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I have reworded slightly to clarify what is backed up by the Browne reference. I have put a {{cn}} tag in where more referencing is needed. We're now straying away from the remit of this DYK nomination; I feel that point #4 of my list above will be resolved with the extra citation, but anything not related to the other three issues (i.e. general article improvements) should be taken up at Talk:Battle of the North Inch. MIDI (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have added Browne as the source where you added the citation needed template as page 154 does clearly state the numbers have been "variously reported". However, finding examples of historians who have actually given different numbers is another thing. Both Browne and Keltie (also quoted in the article) state that some writers have mis-interpreted the works of Hector Boece and George Buchanan to say that 300 warriors took part, but they do not actually specify which writers do this. As you have mentioned any further adjustment to the article would be straying to far from the DYK nomination and should be taken up at the talk page. Regards. QuintusPetillius (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

That's entirely my fault - I have read the reference god knows how many times and did not see that part! I'm very sorry! This is no longer an issue to be resolved. Thanks for your clarification. We could perhaps reword the hook to say something like "as few as thirty warriors on each side" as that corroborates the link (any other reports are greater than 30). Therefore the link would be fully sourced and not potentially incorrect. Just the other points (namely article length) to sort now. I see it's undergone further expansion so I'll run DYKCHECK later when I'm not mobile editing! MIDI (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I have just run DYKCHECK—to help you, the expansion started with this edit on 31 October (prose of 3956 characters). Per the 5x expansion rule (WP:DYKRULES), the article needs to be 19,780 characters to be eligible; it is currently at 4,865. Updated proposed ALT below. MIDI (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

ALT2:... that in 1396, two clans of as few as thirty warriors each fought each other in a trial by combat, and only twelve men survived? Source: James Browne's A History of the Highlands and of the Highland Clans, Volume 1 pages 153-156

So regarding the number of characters, how did the Battle of Craig Cailloch manage to get a successful nomination when it is even shorter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuintusPetillius (talk • contribs) 18:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(passerby)Hello! You need to expand an article five times the size you start with no matter how big it is. If it had a single short paragraph, you could make it five short paragraphs which would make the article both five times the original size and about the minimum acceptable size for DYK. You started on the article when it was 13 short paragraphs, roughly speaking, so it requires to either become about 65 short paragraphs long or a Good Article to be DYK eligible, I would bet on the latter being easier. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Alt2 doesn't work, because the men did not comprise clans, they represented them. They were groups of thirty men, not clans of thirty men. -Freekee (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

- I would try to take this to GA status. --evrik ^(talk) 17:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)