Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Dundee

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Indy beetle (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Siege of Dundee

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

The last of the four articles from this war I have improved. I don't think that it has quite enough "meat" for FAC, but may be sufficient for ACR. See what you think. As bad as Cromwell's earlier "atrocities" in Ireland, but somehow it was taken as "just one of those things". Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IR pass (t · c) buidhe 21:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SR pass sources look at least minimally reliable.
- Ref check: I checked Jones 1948, p. 19. Not sure the source supports "over a century". Certainly it supports "more than 50 years". (t · c) buidhe 20:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of that Buidhe. ("minimally reliable! The cheek.

) Jones: I struggled a bit to understand how you came to that conclusion, but I think I see it. How I came to mine: In the third paragraph of Jones page 19 it says that Dundee was "still struggling to repair its damage" during 1700-1724. And that it only achieved "considerable" - ie incomplete - recovery during the subsequent 75 years. In this 75 years it "la[id] the basis for a renewed prosperity" - ie, didn't achieve it. So by my reckoning Jones is stating that recovery took at least 148 years. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

Will review over the next couple days. Hog Farm _Talk 14:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a nitpick, but the Battle of Dunbar is never linked anywhere outside the lead

Not a nitpick, good point. Fixed.

"while leaving General George Monck with 6,000 of the least experienced men to mop up what Scottish resistance remained" - the lead gives 5,000. I'm assuming the lead isn't counting Okey's later detachment, but I feel like the lead really should say 6,000 if the body number is correct since that was the number of men left in Scotland for mop-up duty

Good spot. No, 6,000 is a typo.

If the storming attack was on the morning of September 1, and the bombardment started on August 30, wouldn't that only be two days of barrage (Aug. 30 and 31)?

I am not doing well here. I don't know why I counted in the 1st. Fixed.

Infobox says 200-500 Scots were captured, but the body gives only 200?
should the English losses in the infobox be mentioned in the body?
Sources/images look fine

I am usually poor at checking infoboxes I inherit, even though it is on my checklist. But this was naff even by my lax standards. Fixed. I believe.

Good work here - anticipate supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 15:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking through this one Hog Farm. All done I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We still have Three days after their artillery opened fire, the English stormed the west and east ports (gates) on the morning of 1 September, but I think that's the last concern of mine. Hog Farm _Talk 15:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

This article is in great shape. I have only the following comments:

The first sentence should note what war this was part of

Whoops! Talk about missing the blindingly obvious. Fixed.

"Scotland was actively rearming " - the previous sentence says this, so I'd suggest tweaking this

Tweaked.

A map of the part of Scotland relevant to this battle would be very useful.

Had a go, see what you think.

Looks good, but should the caption note that the border shown is that for modern Scotland? Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was the same in the 1650s so to say that might actually be misleading. I considered pointing out that the internal boundaries were modern, but decided that was getting nit picky. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick-D, I have had a go at all three. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Please see my question above though. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick, much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

"reform the English church along similar lines" --> "reform the English Church along similar lines"?

Done.

"Oliver Cromwell was appointed commander-in-chief of the New Model Army" Isn't commander-in-chief a title?

It can be, depending on context. If you are wondering why the initial letters are lower case, see MOS:JOBTITLES.

"but he was not able to draw Leslie out" introduce Leslie here?

Why? (He is introduced at first mention in the previous paragraph.)

Can you point out where exactly in the Background section (since that's the previous paragraph)?

The last sentence of Background: "The Scottish Parliament set about rapidly recruiting an army to support the new king, under the command of the experienced general, David Leslie."

My bad.

"marched on the seat of the Scottish government" It's strange to see Scottish Parliament which has an upper case while government hasn't?

Well, not to me. There is one Scottish Parliament, but a new government every few years.

Well I mean sure there are multiple cabinets who run the government?

Is that a question for me? If so, I am struggling a bit to work out what you are asking. Could you exppand, or rephrase.?

No just a question I ask sometimes and I wanted to share that with you. :)

"On 30 August St Andrews also surrendered" No full stop for "St"?

Correct. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Abbreviations#Punctuation and spacing.

"The defeated Scottish government was dissolved" --> "The defeated Scottish Government was dissolved"?

Nice spot. Done.

"Monck again summoned the governor to surrender" --> "Monck again summoned the Governor to surrender"?

Done.

"and the English parliament absorbed the kingdom of Scotland" --> " and the English Parliament absorbed the Kingdom of Scotland"

Done, although on reflection changed to Commonwealth

"commissioners of the English parliament and the deputies" --> "commissioners of the English Parliament and the deputies"?

Done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA-5, all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As promised I did a review and now I replied. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: both answered. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support! Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.