Talk:Battle of Marston Moor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Yorkshire
Portal
Battle of Marston Moor is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's assessment scale.
Please provide a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-Priority on the Project's priority scale.
Good article Battle of Marston Moor has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

According to Dupuy and Dupuy's Encyclopedia of Military History, the Earl of Manchester was in command of parliamentary forces here. john 21:48 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, my sources say he was "nominally" in command. The article doesn't make that very clear, does it? Deb 21:59 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
The fall of York is worth mentioning, as there are several unusual aspects to it. Any takers?

The reference to Southern France in the final paragraph - surely not true is it?

[edit] Re-write

I have rewritten this article, but it needs alot more information in the background section and the battle. Not to mention copy-editing...better prose...but I've started to cite sources, of which this article needs alot more. Additionally, I don't really have a good grasp of the aftermath or general historical analysis of the outcome.

Also, I have little information on the exact number of troops and their layout before the battle began (who led what, etc). That needs to be expanded, and clarified. Qjuad 13:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The aftermath section mentions the impact that this battle had on driving Royalist forces out of northern England. But I can't tell from this article who actually won the entire war and what impact this battle had on that. CLA 02:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This looks to be a very promising article; just going through it for the GA review, but for the moment I feel I need to put the nomination on hold. There are a few, hopefully easily fixed, issues that I think prevents me from passing it at the moment. I shall try to list them here, so you know what needs addressing.

  • In the lead, I'm curious as to why there is a single reference, at the end of the 2nd paragraph. Personally, I prefer to see a lead without any references, since there shouldn't be anything there that isn't mentioned in more detail in the main article.Y Done
  • [edit]Oh, and the lead could probably do with being expanded per WP:LEAD. I am, unfortunately, terrible at writing leads, so can't offer any suggestions :( Carre 14:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Y Done
  • First paragraph of Background: Leven should, I think, be named in full (Earl of Leven) and wikilinked. I know that this is done in the lead, but for some reason I vaguely recall something in MoS that suggests first use excludes the lead (I can't find the relevant part of MoS at the moment, so I could be just imagining it!). Same with Marquess of Newcastle.Y Done
  • First para, Background, first sentence: "...Ireland which" requires a comma; there are a few instances of this – per Fowler, "which" should always be preceded by a comma, and some of them should probably be replaced with "that". That whole sentence is pretty long, and could perhaps be broken up? For example: King Charles negotiated a "cessation" in Ireland, which allowed him to reinforce his armies with English regiments sent to Ireland following the uprising in 1641;[2] the Parliamentarians took an even greater step by signing the Solemn League and Covenant, sealing the alliance with the Scottish CovenantersY Done
  • Relief moves section; generally, it's considered a bad thing to have prose sandwiched between two images, as is the case at the top of this section. Can one of the images be shuffled elsewhere?Y Done
  • Same section, 2nd para: why is "6,000-foot" hyphenated?Y Done
  • "allegedly killing" - could do with an immediate citation there; I assume the one at the end of the para covers the whole, but an allegation should really be instantly sourced.Y Done
  • Lancashire wikilinked multiple times within a section.Y Done
  • Per WP:MOS#Quotations, blockquotes shouldn't have quotation marks around them. Similarly, wikilinking within quotes is often frowned upon, although that part of MoS is disputed.Y Done
  • Third para of this section - repeated use of "ambiguous". I think the first occurrence can be lost without spoiling the prose.Y Done
  • Dates (day and month) should be wikilinked to allow autoformatting and user preferences to work.Y Done
  • Prelude sub-section. WP:MOS#Times suggests that times should use am/pm, so 9 o'clock in the morning should become 9 am.Y Done
  • The allied army sub-section. Shouldn't have "The" in the section header, and the first three paragraphs are unreferenced. Also, numbers over 1,000 should have a comma separator - I think that applies from here to the end of the article.Y Done
  • Third para; "14000-foot", again, why the hyphen?Y Done
  • The royalist army - again, "The" shouldn't be there.Y Done
  • First para of that section: there are a few statements in there would benefit from direct citation – "It was unfortunate" (POV without citation) and "seem quite insolent" (OR without citation). Again, benefit of the doubt and all that, I'll assume that ref#21 covers these statements, but you could consider repeating the reference.Y Done
  • Two unreferenced paragraphs in that section.Y Done
  • Events: "half-past seven" would, I feel, be better as "7:30 pm" or "19:30" if you prefer the 24-hour clock (but be consistent throughout).Y Done
  • "right flank of the Allied infantry" -> "Allied infantry's right flank"?Y Done No, but stet; looks better as it is.
  • "with no general present"; caps. Elsewhere you've used General, even when not naming a General, so consistency. There's another in the last para of this section and again in the 1st para of Aftermath. Anywhere else?Y Done
  • "The Whitecoats refused to surrender and repulsed constant allied cavalry charges until the last 30 survivors finally surrendered." - repetition of "surrender". Could the last be changed to "gave in", "capitulated", or some other synonym?Y Done
  • Penultimate para - needs a citation.Y Done
  • "An additional blow came in the death of his loyal companion during the battle, his lapdog "Boye", who was a constant companion by his side throughout his campaigns;" - repetition of "companion". Maybe "who was a constant presence at his side throughout..."? Or something else.Y Done
  • ", and his own leadership on the battlefield had been crucial to the victory" needs a comma after "battlefield".Y Done

Hmmm, this list grew a lot more than I was expecting! When I first saw the article, I thought it would be an easy pass, and indeed I don't think any of the above will be particularly hard to address. With a thorough copyedit and more references, I can even see this going to FAC in the near future. Great work! Carre 13:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A GA hold is only supposed to last seven days. I see some of the above have now been addressed, but not all. Therefore, I'm giving you a choice – I can extend the on-hold for a bit (will put a note on the GAN page) to give you a bit more time to finish up, or I can fail now and you can renom at a later date. Up to you. Please let me know, here or on my talk, within a day or so or I'll just fail anyway, which would be a shame since this is really very close. Thanks. Carre 13:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Most of these issues look like they can be addressed quickly, so if you would please extend the on-hold deadline by a day or two I'll pitch in with addressing all of the remaining MOS/copyedit issues. --Malleus Fatuarum 16:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Done - give me a shout when you think you're done. I don't think the others over at GAN will shout at me for the extension ;) Do you have the reference material too Malleus, or are you just going to be sorting out the MOS/prose hoops we all have to jump through? Cheers. Carre 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I have some of the reference material, hopefully enough to address the points you've raised if nobody else pitches in to help. Thanks for extending the deadline. I just hate to see an otherwise good article fail GA for the lack of addressing a reviewer's perfectly reasonable concerns. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 21:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[undent]You've done a sterling job here Malleus. The only comments I have remaining are a couple of requests for citations. The first three paragraphs of Scots and Parliamentarians are unreferenced, however, there is little in there that would raise eyebrows. The only sentence that may find itself {{fact}} slapped is "This was a common practice in the Swedish army of the Thirty Years' War" (although if the plan is to take this to FAC, you can be fairly sure those folks would want the lot sourced).

The other one is in Aftermath, and the sentence "but they became increasingly undisciplined and licentious, turning many former sympathisers away from the Royalist cause." That's a pretty bold statement to make without a source, I'm sure you agree.

Other than those two requests, it's a lovely job by all concerned. As I said after my first review, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this at FAC soon. I would suggest trying to get a copy-edit done on it before then (I speak from bitter experience - they can get vicious about prose & grammar over there!). MilHist A-class might be a good path to take too. Carre 10:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Having put those two statements in myself, though Heaven knows how many months ago, I'll have citations in a couple of hours if you can hold the guillotine blade up. Both are fairly well documented (in Young and in Royle for example). HLGallon 13:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Lovely work everyone; I have no problems passing this at GA now - ArticleHistory placed at the top of the page. Carre 11:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)