GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 12:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

Done.
Changed.
There is a list. I don't find it that useful, but I have added it.
Apologies. My poor proof reading. (I think. Or a "helpful" drive-by edit I missed.) Fixed.
Done.
Reworded. Better?
Done.
If you mean why did I not refer to it as the "Treaty of Edinburgh–Northampton" it is because none of my sources do so. Sumption, Ormrod, Rogers and DeFries all call it the "Treaty of Northampton".
Done.
They don't, they don't. Although I like that one. Changed.
Sorry TRM, saved my work while I checked this and forgot that that would ping you. My edit clash response is:
Not really. Just that he was an experienced old soldier who dropped dead in June. One source (just one) mentions rumours that the English poisoned him, but [OR alert] there were rumours of poisoning around most royal and near-royal deaths from 3,000 BC to about 1700.
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oof. There's a complex question. Added "or regent" and linked it, which is about the closest short equivalent.
Changed.
Done.
Because there is a modern secondary RS which gives a figure for the Scottish numbers, but none that do so for their casualties - they all repeat what the contemporary sources say, so I have used them. (The repetition in the Rss, not the chronicles.)
Done.
Changed.
Done.

Nice article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evening TRM, many thanks for picking this up and for your usual high-quality review. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess just one more thing, the first war of independence is mentioned in the body, but the second war of independence is only in the infobox. Is there any context that can be added to place this battle into the second war? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Ah, you would ask that. The RSs don't really go for the First/Second war thing. ORing a bit, Balliol's invasion was just a dynastic squabble. England didn't get involved until the next year, when Edward invaded Scotland. Retrospectively one might argue that Kinghorn was the first conflict of the Second War of Scottish Independence, assuming you're a historian who recognises such an entity - most don't - but at the time it was just argy bargy among the Scottish nobility. I could possibly cherry pick sources - especially the more popular ones - to come up with a coherent sentence or so, but the consensus of RS scholars is the ignore the whole First/Second Wars of Independence altogether.
So that's two reasons why I duck it. I agree that it leaves a minor hole - but only because Wikipedia as an encyclopedia likes to pigeon hole things in neat categories, inventing them - or at least overstressing their importance - if necessary. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, no problem. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]