Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Second War of Scottish Independence/archive1

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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 12 May 2022 [1].

---

Second War of Scottish Independence

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

After six FACs (and three GANs) on episodes from Edward III's war against Scotland I now offer up the overview. This article attempts to summarise the 25 years of the Second War of Scottish Independence. Which probably caused the Hundred Years' War and even ground on for 11 years after Edward captured the Scottish king. What to include, what to leave out, what to summarise down? Oh me, oh my! Much, obviously, is based on those nine previous articles and Ealdgyth kindly provided this article with an especially rigorous GAN. I think it's as ready as it's going to get. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Image review—pass, no licensing issues found. (t · c) buidhe 22:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• " In response to Philip's urgent requests, David invaded England believing most of its previous defenders would be in France." Does "previous" really add anything?

IMO, yes. I took it out. Then put it back as its lack seemed to wilfully withhold information.

• "Edward's chosen target was Berwick: a Scottish town on the Anglo-Scottish border, astride the main invasion and trade route in either direction.[22]" We know Berwick is Scottish then, as you've told us that twice already, and will again soon after.

Too much of a good thing? mention removed.

• "The leading pro-Bruce nobles appealed to Philip for formal military assistance." Should this be "... nobles formally appealed to Philip for military assistance?"

It should. Done.

• " the latter was a potential port of embarkation for any French expeditionary force" Should embarkation be disembarkation?

D'oh! Fixed.

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• "A small number of French knights marched alongside the Scots." Just to be picky, were they marching or riding?

They marched, in the Wiktionary sense of "To go to war". If I were to put "rode alongside", that would imply that all of the Scots were mounted, which they weren't.

• "The Scots were surprised by the appearance of the English close to Durham.[87]" I might consider a comma after "English".

I suspect that we adhere to rather different schools of comma'isation.

That's it. Very interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt, and thanks for the review. You comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Support--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

What a pleasure to be reviewing a Gog article on a 14th-century war once again. This one is well up to standard, and I confidently expect to be supporting it. But first, a few carps and quibbles about the prose.

• Lead

• "in May 1337 the French king, Philip VI, engineered a clear break" – I'm not clear what it was that was clearly (cleanly?) broken.

Clarified.

• English invasion of Scotland, 1332

• "He insisted Balliol not invade Scotland" – there seems to be a subjunctive missing – "should" or "must" for example.

Rewritten.

• "15,000–40,000 men" – that's a helluva range – the authorities differ that widely, I take it?

Hey, for the period that's precise[!] And this is from just the single modern source. Happy to email you the page - you would perhaps enjoy it.

That would be good: please do. Tim riley talk 16:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Received and found most interesting – thank you. Tim riley talk 22:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• English invasion of Scotland, 1333

• "a set-piece battle, which he anticipated winning" – a minor point of usage: it is no bad thing to observe the traditional usage of "anticipate" (note the ant– element) by keeping the verb to mean predicting and forestalling something by taking action in advance. (A. P. Herbert commented, in the days before the permissive society, that "John and Jane anticipated marriage" is not the same as "John and Jane expected to be married".) I think here, just "which he expected to win" is right.

Weeell, I chose the word carefully and suspect that Edward did anticipate winning, rather than expected to, but changed to "which he believed he would win".

• "Berwick was well-defended, well-garrisoned, and well-stocked with provisions and materiel" – this is a resonant and particularly pleasing sentence, if I may say so: the repetitions of "well" have a fine cumulative effect.

Why, thank you. I strive for the memorable, which does sometimes come unstuck, and isn't to all reviewers' tastes. Hyphenectomy applied.

My comment that the hyphens might not be wanted seems to have vanished, but I'm not sure they should be used here. It's "a well-defended town" but "the town was well defended", I think. Tim riley talk 16:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I assume that I did something - it was there when I read your comments and has been acted upon.

• "the camp followers made off" – I really do think you need to follow the OED in hyphenating "camp-followers" otherwise we're perilously close to Julian and Sandy territory.

At least one chronicler mentions that the Scottish tentage was a much washed shade of light red.

I shall refrain from seeking clarification of that, thank you. Tim riley talk 16:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• "although it is unclear when this commenced" – at the risk of repeating myself like a cracked gramophone record, may I point out again that "commence" is on Fowler's list of "genteelisms" and that a plain "began" or "started" would be less prissy.

But I like prissy! Changed.

• "he convinced Edward to spend the winter" – in BrE, unlike AmE, one doesn't "convince to": one convinces someone of or "that" something or other, but persuades him to. (I happen to think AmE usage is excellent in this case, but it ain't the Queen's English.)

Changed.

• French involvement

• "Gascony was important to Edward, the duty levied by the English Crown on wine from there was more than all other customs duties" – comma splice. Any one of a colon, a semicolon or a full stop would be fine here.

Oops. Fixed.

• "could not agree a on position for the peace negotiations" – something awry here. As discussed elsewhere, you and I are ad idem that "agree to" and a plain "agree" can have different shades of meaning, but here, it seems to me, you want either "could not agree a position" or "could not agree on a position".

The latter. My typo. Thank you.

• English invasion of Scotland, 1335–1336

• " arbitration by the pope …. persuaded by Pope Benedict XII" – if the first-mentioned pontiff was Benedict XII it might be as well to name him the first, rather than the second time he crops up.

And oops again. Fixed.

• France joins the fight

• "immediately commenced a fresh round" – see comments, above on the refained "commence" – purely a stylistic point and I don't press it all that hard, though perhaps it's time to trot out the relevant Noël Coward quote again: "I just can't abide the word testicles. It's smug and refined like 'commence' and 'serviette' and 'haemorrhoids'. When in doubt always turn to the good old Anglo-Saxon words. If you have piles, say so!"

Given what I have put on my user page I can't argue. Changed.

• Scottish resurgence, 1338–1346

• "The French continued to supply the Scots and they had the better of the fighting" – "they" being the French or the Scots? (Yes, I know, but you should make it explicit.)

Is "The French continued to supply the Scots, who had the better of the fighting." acceptable?

Perfect, I'd say. Tim riley talk 16:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Captivity of David II

• " ensured a lack of trust from David" – a little convoluted? Perhaps, "ensured that David did not trust him"?

Changed to "gave David reason to mistrust him".

That's better still, I think. Tim riley talk 16:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• English invasion of Scotland, 1356

• "the important English-held border town of Berwick-on-Tweed" – I think you've already made it clear that Berwick was (i) a border town and (ii) important.

Indeed. Slimmed.

• Treaty of Berwick, 1357

• "With no prospect of further military nor financial assistance" – "or", not "nor", I think.

Not where I was taught English. Although that is, of course, little recommendation. Changed.

With due respect to your teachers, "neither" and "nor" go together, as do "either and or". Thus, "there was prospect of neither military nor financial assistance" but "there was no prospect of either military or financial assistance".

I am aware of the "rule", and was taught that there are other occasions on which "nor" could be employed. A couple of randomly selected dictionaries seem to support this, but let it pass.

Those are my few comments and suggestions. I have greatly enjoyed reading and reviewing this article. Over to you, and I'll look in again to add my support, I hope. – Tim riley talk 16:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim. I am afraid that this is the last of my Scottish War articles. Perhaps one last 14th-century FAC to come. I am pleased that you enjoyed it. Less so that I seem to keep repeating my errors. Ah well. See what you make of my responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Supporting. A fine grand finale to the series. Seems comprehensive to this layman's eye, is beautifully written, seems balanced, is thoroughly and widely referenced and well illustrated. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 17:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Source review

• You might consider spelling out "NY" in full in the citation for DeVries; I've had UK editors tell me the US state abbreviations are not very mnemonic, though I admit "NY" is one few will complain about.

You are completely correct. No idea what I was thinking. Fixed.

• I think of Alison Weir as a popular history writer, rather than a scholarly source. Is this a particular area of expertise for her?

The work seems entirely HQ, as well as RS, to me. To quote a notoriously unreliable source "She primarily writes about the history of English royal women and families". Her, extensive, list of non-fiction works supports this. Similarly, Random House appears a reliable and conscientious publisher. (At GAN the more reliable Ealdgyth commented " I really wish someone academic would publish something on Queen Isabella so we can stop having to use Weir .. heh. Not a complaint you can fix (even at FAC) ... just a general whine.")

• One source, Oman (1924), is almost a century old; this is used to cite the date of a battle and the way the attack began. Has no newer source given these details? Or is Oman regarded as completely reliable so that there's no need to replace the cite?

With something like this one can find another source for almost anything, and I certainly don't wish to get into bun fight as to Oman's reputation for reliability. I'll look up another source.

I'm fine with accepting Oman if it's an academic source, since this is a matter of determining what can be reliably stated by reading the primary sources. It's when you get back to before 1900 it starts to get a little more unreliable in some disciplines. If you can't find this particular detail in a more recent source I think that's OK if Oman was an authority on the topic in his day. In Anglo-Saxon history, for example, I wouldn't trust almost anyone's analysis except Plummer from much before 1900; I just don't know what's reliable in this field so I thought I should ask. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Ealdgyth queried him too; when two editors like that query something a sensible nominator backs down, sharpish. I'll get back to you, although I am realising why I ended up with Oman in the first place. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Oman is gone, replaced by Sadler and a slight expansion of Sumption. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

That's all I can find to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Ceoil

Placeholder. Looks good from a scan. Ceoil (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• In the lead, "attempted to claim the Scottish throne against that of Robert Bruce's eight-year-old son" - is against right..."competed against" or "take from", or whatever . Also, don't introduce him cold - give some indication of the basis for his claim, ie the crowned prince of X, or general recruited by (dont know enough to advise but it was a bit jarring).

Fair points. Rewritten.

• More later. Have read about a 5th, no concerns, taking a break. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• The word "devastated" is used 10 times. What does this mean exactly: burned, sacked, slaughtered? Ceoil (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The first Wiktionary definition starts with "To ruin many or all things over a large area".

• shattering defeat could be decisive defeat

It could. Any specific issues with "shattering"?

• From an army of 14,000–16,000, approximately 6,000 were killed or captured - approximately 6,000 from an army of 14,000–16,000

Done.

• the King of France was one of those taken prisoner - Including the King of France who was taken prisoner on the (closest date).

I prefer the existing wording, unless you have a particular reason for the change.

The above are non-deal breaking. Support Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that Ceoil, much appreciated. Also thanks for the helpful copy edit; I have tweaked or even reverted a couple of your edits in this edit. Feel free to come back at me re anything you are unhappy with or baffled by. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: Given the progress of this nomination, could I have permission to launch another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC) Sure, go ahead. (t · c) buidhe 13:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "Within three months the Bruce partisans": the reader doesn't yet know what "Bruce" refers to.

  True. It got edited out in response to an edit above and I didn't chase down the consequences adequetely. Thanks. Fixed.

  You still have "the Bruce loyalists" in the second paragraph of the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

What. I could have sworn I changed that. What an idiot. Thanks again. Fixed.

• "engineered a clear break France and England": missing a word?

Added.

• "but forced to focus on the French theatre the English slowly lost ground in Scotland": I think you need parenthetical commas around "forced to focus on the French theatre", but as I know we differ on commas I didn't copyedit them in. The problem is that when the eye encounters "forced" it is initially parsed as "Edward forced", and it's several words later before the parentheticality, if that's a word, of the phrase becomes evident.

I see your point, but additional commas seem a clumsy remedy. I have separated the Scottish and French parts of the sentence - "Edward sent what troops he could spare to Scotland, in spite of which the English slowly lost ground in Scotland as they were forced to focus on the French theatre." Does that work?

• "In 1346, Edward led a large English army through northern France: sacking Caen, heavily defeating the French at Crécy and besieging Calais". Colons introduce lists, and this is a list, but it's a list of verbs not nouns, and sounds wrong to my ear. I think you'd be better off with either a comma there, or "In 1346, Edward led a large English army through northern France: he sacked Caen, heavily defeated the French at Crécy and besieged Calais".

Replaced with a comma. (Which now looks a little odd to my eye, but my punctuation is well known to be dodgy.)

• "Edward was forced into signing the treaty": how about "The 15-year-old Edward", to reinforce the point about his regents' influence?

By all means. Done.

• "confined his mother": you haven't said Isabella is his mother.

Oops. Added at first mention.

• "The French, unhappy about an English expansion into Scotland, covertly supported and financed the Bruce loyalists, although from when is unclear." This may not require a change to the article, but I'm curious about how this is known if, per note 3, there is no definite evidence. Should the article say "may have covertly" if this is speculation, even if informed academic speculation?

  Oh good grief! That was a typo - "1355" for '1335'. Does it make more sense now?

  Very much so! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• "destroying the property of friend and foe alike": seems an unproductive strategy. Do we know if this was through ignorance, stupidity, or an inability to control the raiding parties?

Essentially, no we don't. ORing I suspect an inability to distinguish between the property of the two; an inability to identify which group individuals fell into; and control issues re troops who personally profited from the devastation. But nothing so specific for this particular episode. Although, while no doubt unproductive, it reads like a summary of most 100YW campaigns - and Anglo-Scottish ones were nastier; see Burnt candlemas.

• Two consecutive sentences start with "Despite..." early in the "France joins the fight" section.

Second one removed and sentence rephrased.

• "In 1341 David II reached the age of 18": our article on him says he was born in 1324?

A notoriously unreliable source. But good spot, and I seem to have conflated a page in Brown, so the aged 18 bit removed.

• "In 1341 David II reached the age of 18 and returned to Scotland on 2 June with his wife Joan, Edward's sister. Fighting with the English had died down, but the Scottish nobility was riven with feuds. David wished to establish his own authority and surround himself with his own people. This had the effect of inflaming an already tense situation. Nevertheless, the English were steadily pushed back." Five consecutive shortish sentences, with a rather staccato effect on the flow. How about joining the third and fourth with "but"?

Thanks for that. I have gone for a more radical option, making it both shorter and (I hope) less choppy.

• "this enraged Douglas to the extent that he imprisoned Ramsay": why did it enrage him? And I think you could just make it "this enraged Douglas, who imprisoned Ramsay".

  Second point done.

  I think that has to be a comma, not a semi-colon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The reason for the enragement was in an old version, but sometime over the past six months I had trimmed it out in the interests of summary style. Reinstated. Semi colon also lost in the rephrasing, even at the cost of upping my comma count.

• "David was himself attempting to control affairs from England": so the English allowed him sufficient communications with Scotland to do this?

  Apparently. I could expand on their reasons a little, although most sources tend to state the facts and not speculate too much as to what was going on in Edward's head. But I don't imagine that he was too upset about a Guardian with a claim to the throne being undermined by a man he held captive.

  No change needed, I think, unless you have something you feel is illuminated from one of your sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• "Stewart was disinclined to support any terms which removed him from the succession": the reader doesn't know that Stewart is David's nephew. Is Stewart the direct heir at this point?

  They do if they read the footnotes. Should I assume they don't? (No. 5.)

  Nobody else has complained, so I won't insist, but I think in your shoes I'd put that fact into the narrative directly. It's a significant fact about the relationship between David and Stewart and I would think some readers will skip the footnotes if they feel they are following the story without them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Nobody else complaining doesn't mean that your suggestion wouldn't improve the article. I have removed the footnote from first mention of Stewart and inserted the same information in line at second mention - when he becomes guardian. It seems more relevant there, and working it into the account of the battle is going to mess up the flow.

• The truce lasted four decades; perhaps a mention of what broke it forty years later?

Added.

Looks very good; just a few points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

More strikes; just the question of why Douglas was enraged. And I really think that has to be a comma there.... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks Mike, I don't know where I/this article would be without your beady eyes. I think that is everything addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Support; looks good. I will try to resist the temptation to find more ways to add commas to your articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 21:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.