Talk:Battle of Winwick/GA1

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 08:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take a look at this dreckly. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Should I have waited until you'd gone back into hibernation? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • References all appear to be to reliable sources.
  • There are some very minor inconsistencies among the references. Mostly the sources use "Last, First" for names, but for "Furgol, Edward (2002)", "Gentles, Ian (2002)" and "Kenyon, John & Ohlmeyer, Jane (2002)", the book those references are in uses "First Last": "In John Kenyon & Jane Ohlmeyer (eds.)." The same for "MacKenzie, Kirsteen (2009)". But "Hannay, David (1911)" has Last, First. I'd recommend switching all to Last, First.
That will learn me not to cut and paste apparently well-formatted cites. Possibly.
  • Also, "Hannay, David (1911)" doesn't have a publisher location, while all other book sources do.
For whatever reason, the convention is not to do so for encyclopedias. Note that the EB cite is a template.
Hmm. Fine for GA, but I'd push more at FA. this conversation on the template talk was interesting. I think that for a FA, we should be striving for a consistent approach, which would mean including the location, especially given you do for other CUP and OUP sources. This could be achieved by either boldly adding the location field to {{Cite EB1911}}, or by using {{Cite encyclopedia}} directly. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing to do with the template. If someone added an encyclopedia location at FAC and I noticed, I would be asking them why?
  • "Wanklyn, Malcolm (2014)" Doesn't need "South Yorkshire" as a clarifier, none of the other sources have the county.
Done. But 60:40 that I'll be asked to replace it at FAC.
As long as you also do the same for all other towns and cities, that's fine! Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps no one will notice.

Images

Ok.
  • Full prose review to follow, but make sure key terms are linked on first use in the body. The Primary sources section looks very underlinked. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Started. I'll crack on when I get a chance.
Done. Ready. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

  • "..while Hodgson's wrote his memoirs in 1683." Typo.
Fixed.
  • "As well there is a letter by.." Sounds a bit clunky to me. Maybe "There is also a letter by.."
Done.
  • "A well trained musktetman took.." As "well trained" is being used as a prepositive adjective, it should be "well-trained".
Done.
  • Note 1 talks about the Battle of Preston, rather than Winwick. If it is clear from the source that this would have applied to both, make it more explicit that this was the case at Winwick.
Oops.Done.
  • "Parliamentarian cavalry tactics were intended to use their strengths." Really? It's amazing that their tactics would aim to play to their strengths. (I mean, seriously, some of the battles you've written about, this genuinely seems like a step-up in class.) But, in terms of the article, as written this sentence feels simple and redundant. I'd recommend changing to something along the lines of "In order to utilise/maximise/best benefit from their strengths, Parliamentarian cavalry tactics were to advance in a tight formation.."
Close to unique it this war, and virtually unknown in several others. Rewritten and trimmed.
PS I loved your "The Carthaginian authorities decided to instead wait until all of the troops had arrived and then attempt to negotiate a settlement at a lower rate." Well, this doesn't seem a recipe for disaster at all. Sit an army inside your city, and then try and screw them over. No review comment here. Unless I'm reviewing their tactics, in which case I might start looking for that quick fail template again.
  • As there is no article for it, could you add a note to explain briefly what a frame gun is.
I am away from my sources for the weekend, so have tweaked. Hopefully this will get it throughGAN. Once I am home I'll either create the article or add a fuller explanation, with FAC in mind. Currently there is a brief in line explanation at second mention!

Reviewed to end of Opposing forces, more to follow. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Harrias, just what it needs. All of your points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charles now engaged in separate negotiations with different factions." "then", not "now". He's long dead, he isn't doing anything now.
Just as well. Done.
  • "With rebellion flaring in England and Wales.." Avoid noun plus-ing. Also, the construction of the sentence makes it sound like Gentles is commenting at the same time as it is happening, even despite the "modern historian" tag.
Changed.
  • "Both sides were hampered by the weather, the summer of 1648 was extremely wet and stormy." Seems fragmented, maybe rephrase to something like "The summer of 1648 was extremely wet and stormy, causing both sides to be hampered by the weather."
Doesn't seem any better to me. But doesn't seem any worse, so done.
  • "His men harassed the Royalist force around Carlisle and gathered information, as well as besieging Pontefract Castle from early June." The "and" followed by "as well" seems odd. I would suggest either "His men harassed the Royalist force around Carlisle, gathered information, and besieged Pontefract Castle.." or "His men harassed the Royalist force around Carlisle and gathered information, before besieging Pontefract Castle from early June."
Changed.
  • "..make their way south, to be well away from Cromwell's force by morning, to link up with their main force of cavalry at Wigan." Could we remove the second comma (and the close repetition of "to") by replacing "to" with "and"?
Done.
  • "Some men had not eaten nor slept for two nights, cavalrymen fell asleep in their saddles, the rain continued." Personally, I'd prefer "neither" to "not". The bit about rain at the end doesn't quite chime right. Firstly, other than the general reference to the wet and stormy weather of the summer of 1648, I can't see that the rain has specifically been mentioned. Secondly, it feels a tad too poetic in its phrasing here.
You don't like poetry? Have you no soul? Removed.

Reviewed to end of Prelude, more to follow. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It is this bank which causes the battle to be sometimes known as Red Bank." Feels like this would be better suited as a note than inline, but it's no big deal.
As it is mentioned in the first sentence of the lead I feel an obligation to leave it in line.
  • "..when one's forces.." Remove "one's".
Done.
  • The second half of the first paragraph has confused me a bit. First, it presents "the plan", but later the article theorises that "possibly the plan was". Firstly, the article should not sound like it is theorising, that should be attributed to a source. Secondly, if it isn't 100% certain what the plan was, then the first description shouldn't be labelled as "the plan", but merely one possible plan. Or... I'm just not reading it right.
It is the sources which theorise. But good point re nailing down "a plan". I'll think on't.
  • "..hard pressed by the Parliamentarians and with stragglers and wounded attacked and killed by local people. The repetition of "and" here makes this sentences difficult to parse first time, I had to re-read it a couple of times to work it out.
Yeah, that sentence is trying to do too much. Split into two. Better?
  • The rest of the prose is fine.
  • Infobox query: the Scottish/Royalist 'Strength' totals 8,000 while the 'Casualties and losses' total 8,500. Doesn't seem quite right.
No? And both are sourced. Bugger. I'll re-examine them; I probably have a firm grip on the wrong end of one of them.

That seems to be about it. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping up

(A few outstanding points copied from above.)

  • We seem to be missing a word after "Parliamentarian" in the lead "..between part of a Royalist army under Lieutenant General William Baillie and a Parliamentarian commanded by.."
Noun added.
  • The second half of the first paragraph has confused me a bit. First, it presents "the plan", but later the article theorises that "possibly the plan was". Firstly, the article should not sound like it is theorising, that should be attributed to a source. Secondly, if it isn't 100% certain what the plan was, then the first description shouldn't be labelled as "the plan", but merely one possible plan. Or... I'm just not reading it right.
It is the sources which theorise. But good point re nailing down "a plan". I'll think on't.
This has been sourced to ref #2, "Historic England", but I can't see where they theorise about two different possible plans? Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Theorising removed. ORing wildly, my guess is that once the infantry stopped for an hour you couldn't have got half of them moving again at bayonet point. The cavalry only thought they were exhausted.
  • Infobox query: the Scottish/Royalist 'Strength' totals 8,000 while the 'Casualties and losses' total 8,500. Doesn't seem quite right.
No? And both are sourced. Bugger. I'll re-examine them; I probably have a firm grip on the wrong end of one of them.
Presumably, this is just because of varying estimates, but it is just quite jarring that they seem to have taken more losses than they started with!
Yep. For some inexplicable reason on one held a muster. I've done what I should have done in the first place - given the estimates of the HQ RSs in the text with a warning that they are just guessing, and put a range covering these figures in the infobox.

Once those three points are resolved, I think we're all done here. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Harrias. How's it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, all looks good now, passing. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Winwick/GA1&oldid=1137654623"