Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Dupplin Moor/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2021 [1].

Battle of Dupplin Moor

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In 1332 a claimant to the Scottish throne, Edward Balliol, landed on the north shore of the Firth of Forth with 1,500 mostly English adventurers. Astonishingly, within a week they had defeated the Scottish army - at least ten times stronger, and possibly more than 25 times - with great slaughter. Balliol was crowned king of Scotland and the Second War of Scottish Independence began. This is an account of that battle. There are, I believe, sufficient contemporary accounts of the battle, and modern scholars commenting on them, to support the weight of a FA and I have plundered them to the utmost. Any and all constructive criticism is most welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • What is the meaning of the red square vs blue circle on the map? A legend would be useful
Done.
They have been removed.
  • File:Charge_of_the_Scots_at_Halidon_Hill.jpg: author link goes to a dab page - which one is intended?
Fixed. (James Grant (1822–1887))

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria, your suggestions all actioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source review—pass

Do we need a blockquote in "Location" section? (t · c) buidhe 20:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my opinion yes, despite my frequent citing of WP:QUOTE to cut down on the use of quotes I believe that in this case it communicates the information well and succinctly and that little or no purpose would be served by paraphrasing it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe, response above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe, would I be correct in assuming that there was more to come by way of a source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. Will get to it later today. (t · c) buidhe 20:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicholson 1961
    • "whom Edward I had deposed in 1296" exact words copied from the source. Should be rephrased.
Rephrased. And cite changed to Sumption 1990.
    • "Almost immediately" This doesn't seem to be supported by the source, which appears to say it happened 2 months later
Less than two months is almost immediately in Medieval terms. (On 17 October 1346 David II was captured by Edward III. His ransom negotiations overran and he was released in October 1357.) Changed to "Within two months Balliol granted ..."
    • Nicholson 1961, p. 126. — there's no page 126 in the source.
Apologies. Well spotted. Thank you. Wrong Nicholson work. They should have cited the 1974 one. Fixed.
  • Webster 2004
    • "The Second War of Scottish Independence which had started with Balliol's invasion finally ended in 1357" I cannot verify this in the source which never mentions any "war of Scottish independence".
Grr! I used this to show when the war ended, having already established its name in an earlier sentence - which I deleted along with the cite in the copy edit! Now nailed down at each corner. (Can I cite to the title of a book?)

(t · c) buidhe 21:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Buidhe, your comments so far addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok (t · c) buidhe 21:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

[edit]

I inserted an obvious missing verb, other comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thanks.
  • between more than 15,000 and 40,000 men—I don't like between more than, just "between" I would have thought?
That is not quite what the source says. I have rewritten to be a little longer but avoid the unwelcome phraseology. My fault, as I was inconsistent and not quite true to the source in the main text - now tidied.
  • Link Fife, Berwick, Dunfermline
Done.
  • Balliol was crowned king of Scotland.—cap King?
Not according to MOS:JOBTITLES. Lots of people have been king of Scotland; Balliol was only one of them.
It's not a job title; it's a title of nobility--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • from Yorkshire ports on 31 July 1332.—which ports?
The sources sayeth not. Sumption has "three Yorkshire ports"; Nicholson "the Humber"; others either "Yorkshire ports" or have Balliol's force gathering in Yorkshire and sailing to Scotland without explicitly stating that they left via Yorkshire ports. (I could make a good guess based on this, but that would be OR. I assume some chronicle lists the ports - there may or may not be a good reason why the sources don't name them.)
  • Yes, not many realistic options, but if it doesn't say...
Those Scots who had not been killed or captured fled—perhaps Those Scots who were not killed...
Why? What about those who were captured? (Some of whom would have been captured without fleeing? In these sorts of presses it was common for many prisoners to be those dragged semi- or unconscious from the heaps of bodies. This is not explicitly stated by any source, but it is for similar battles which are covered in greater detail, eg Crecy or Agincourt.)
  • I think my ellipsis above has muddied the waters, I wasn't querying the content of the sentence, just the verb tense, i.e were not instead of had not been. Anyway, I'll leave that one with you, otherwise happy to Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Fixed.
Thanks Jimfbleak, appreciated. Your comments to date addressed above. Further eagerly awaited. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Will take a look soon, might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 23:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Patterson 1996 seems to be unused
Odd, but fixed.
  • It looks like the exact date of 21 March for adding to the historic listing needs an exact citation
Oops. Now covered in main text.
  • In the Omrod reference, it might be wise to add the US state for New Haven.
Done.
  • Same comment about the author link for the battle image as Nikkimaria.
Fixed.
  • Do we really need the accessdate for the Weir book?
Removed

Anticipate supporting. I can barely even find things to nitpick here. Very excellent work; some of your best work, Gog. Hog Farm Talk 17:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is very flattering Hog Farm, especially from someone who themselves knows what it means to generate an account of the nuts and bolts of a large scale of a battle which is a generally comprehensible, coherent account which also covers everything of note in the sources while being true to them and yet manages to of a professional standard. I shall endeavour to maitain the standard. Your points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, source reliability, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, and 4. Did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 21:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • pike equipped, infantry hyphenate pike equipped, delete the last comma
That's not quite what the source says, so I have changed it to "pike-equipped ordinary infantry".
  • Remove the adjectival command from the template for 600 feet
Done.
  • were more able to use their weapons Suggest "had more room to use/swing..."
What do you think about "had room to use their weapons more effectively"?
  • Put Ormrod in alphabetical order
Done.
  • Nicely done.
Every one seems to like this. Perhaps I should skip ACR more often. ;-)

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sturmvogel, that is good of you. Your comments above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but you probably missed my comment in Jim's section about capitalizing King of England?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmvogel 66, I did. I disagree, but changed anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

@Ian Rose and Ealdgyth:, @FAC coordinators: , as this has completed image and source reviews, has three supports, including one by a non-MilHist regular, and has been up for three weeks, can I have permission to nominate another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • I think you need to say in the lead that Balliol was forced to flee Scotland within months of the battle to make clear that it was not decisive in the long run.
Balliol's subsequent periods on the throne added.
  • I think you should use specialist sources for 14C Scottish history, not Alison Weir and Sumption's history of the Hundred Years War.
Why? Both are reliable sources, and Sumption in particular gives a good and detailed account of the political background, as part of his 184 page examination of the background to the Hundred Year's War.
  • "possibly echeloned forward" What does this mean?
Good point. Military jargon. Removed. (And a Sumption cite goes with it.)
  • "at the Battle of Annan a few months after his coronation" You should give the date of the battle.
Good point. Done.
  • "In his classic study, A History of War in the Middle Ages, Sir Charles Oman says: "The Battle of Dupplin formed a turning point in the history of the Scottish wars. For the future the English always adopted the order of battle which Balliol and Beaumont had discovered.". 1. You cannot cite the book for the statement that it is a classic. 2. The quote is very dated. Is it not possible to find a comment by a modern military historian? 3. You do not mention that the book is volume 2 and the 2nd edition.
Removed.
  • "Balliol's support within Scotland was limited and within six months it had collapsed. He was ambushed by supporters of David II at the Battle of Annan a few months after his coronation. Balliol fled to England half-dressed and riding bareback. He appealed to Edward III for assistance." The sources for this are dated 1907 and 1913, which seems too dated.
Replaced with Nicholson, 1974.
  • I do not have sources on the battle, but it seems to me very dubious to say "Balliol and Beaumont" with Balliol first. The sources I can access say that Beaumont was the driving force behind launching the invasion and a very experienced and competent soldier, while Balliol had no known experience of warfare. Does no source say that Beaumont must have been the architect of the victory? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My sources give Balliol as the overall leader. Rogers for example talks of Beaumont's "remarkable military experience" and has him initially organising the disinherited lords. Once Balliol joins them he repeatedly refers to "Balliol's army". Or Nicholson (1974) "Their leaders included Edward Balliol, Henry Beaumont ..." He then lists six others, but note that Balliol comes first of the eight "leaders". Or DeVries discusses Balliol's role and continues "As well as Balliol these men included [names seven] and, perhaps most importantly, the rich and powerful Henry of Beaumont ...". He then describes the army as Balliol's: "Balliol [meaning his army] marched west". Nicholson in the Encyclopædia Britannica article you quote from says "Balliol came from France to head their expedition".
I follow your logic, but the sources take precedence. What are the sources you have accessed which suggest that Beaumont was the expeditionary force's leader?
No sources on Beaumont as leader, only ODNB articles on military experience. As you say, the sources have Balliol as leader. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ranald Nicholson's article on the battle in the 1973 Encyclopædia Britannica says "Greatly outnumbered, Balliol's men adopted tactics later copied by Edward III at the battles of Halidon Hill and Crécy; save for about 40 German mercenaries kept in reserve, all the men-at-arms dismounted, while archers were posted on either flank. When an impetuous charge by the first Scottish division failed to make headway its flanks were riddled by flights of English arrows and converged in disorder upon the centre." This repeats in its details what you have said, but it seems a much clearer explanation of why Dupplin was tactically important than Oman's vague comment. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hard copy of the 1964 edition which has the same statement. I rejected it as not adding anything to the description in the article. It doesn't seem worth quoting in full, so I have replaced Oman with a paraphrased version of this.
Many thanks for looking through this Dudley, I appreciate it. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A first rate article. I would however like to see the Nicholson comment expanded to explain which tactics Edward copied and I think it is worth mentioning in the lead. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley: quote - you are right; I was over focusing on the description of the Scots behaviour and threw the baby out with the bathwater. Tweaked to read "The modern historian Ranald Nicholson states that Edward III copied the tactics used at Dupplin Moor – "all the men-at-arms dismounted, while archers were posted on either flank" – in the English victories at Halidon Hill and Battle of Crécy."
Lead - I am already unhappy at the length of the lead, yet struggle to see how I could slim it to make room for additional points. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Dupplin_Moor/archive1&oldid=1025930526"