Talk:English invasion of Scotland (1400)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:English invasion of Scotland (1400)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am giving this an article a Review for possible Good Article status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 04:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc Shearonink (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Just a few issues, these are listed below. Shearonink (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   One last thing, then it should be good to go. Shearonink (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   The three oxford dnb refs are behind a paywall, they require a subscription. The refs need to say so. If you need some helps on this take a look at Template:Subscription required.
   

   The easiest way is to put {{subscription required}} at the end of the reference as in <ref>{{cite info etc.}} {{subscription required}}</ref> . Shearonink (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thaks for the walk through-  Done O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem, glad my explanation made sense. Shearonink (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

1. C. It contains no original research:

   Well-researched, nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool and found no issues. Shearonink (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   I especially like how the article puts all the principal players in context - all the infighting is mentioned - deposed a cousin, nobles fighting for control, etc. Shearonink (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Images are all relevant. I also think that when images of the people are used in the historical articles, it humanizes the subject for our general readership. Shearonink (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Status on hold pending the various issues below and some more read-throughs. Shearonink (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   • Did another read-through, have one last question, please see below "Readthrough - found an issue". After this is discussed/attended to, I will be ready to finish up the Review. Shearonink (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I am listing these issues separately below, for visual clarity - not because they are awful or more important, but because it will be easier to keep track of as they get attended-to. Shearonink (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Not only was no pitched battle was ever attempted, -> The grammar of this sentence needs to be fixed (two was'es...)

Background

to thesitting parliament in November 1399. -> spacing but one of Scotland's own greatest military commanders ->This is a little hard to understand, the wording needs to be adjusted.

Aftermath

Likewise, the Scotichronicon suggesting that 'nothing worthy of remembrance was done' by their enemies. -> is this verb tense what you wanted it to be? Seems like it should be "suggested" instead of "suggesting".

• And  Done these three, too. Restructured the last one. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to ping Shearonink. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Readthrough - found an issue

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Did another read-through and came upon a phrase/word-choice that I think needs to be adjusted... "came directly from the royal [[Household]]" which renders as "came directly from the royal Household".
There are a couple of possible issues here:

1. Did you mean to only link the word Household?
2. Is it proper for the one word to be capitalized (Household) and not the other? Should it be Royal Household or royal household?
   

I think it should probably not link to the generic household (which is to the definition of the term that applies to anyone and everyone) but instead link to the more specific understanding of the unit of the English government of that era [[Royal Households of the United Kingdom#Historical overview|Royal Household]] which will then be rendered as Royal Household but am willing to discuss etc. It does seem to me that, since the term is referring to a unit of government with a specific form and function - like a Member of Parliament or White House Staff and so on - that both words should be capitalized, but let's work that through. Shearonink (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Well spotted Shearonink. I agree on both your points- This suggests that RH is capitalised is the sources, and yes, as you say, it is a unit of government rather than my mum's kitchen :) cheers! Doing that now. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Future edits

Going forward (and if the writer-editor is considering FA) I think some of the wording and phrasing in the article could perhaps be reworked to read more smoothly. For instance:

• "Dunbar was not only an example of the divisions within the Scottish nobility, but one of Scotland's own greatest military commanders." the phrase "one of Scotland's own greater military commanders" seems to have one too many adjectives describing the word "commanders" (which itself modifies the word "one"). Perhaps something along the lines of "Dunbar was not only an example of the divisions within the Scottish nobility itself[which is already stating that he is Scottish and therefore already "one of Scotland's own"] but also one of that country's greatest military commanders".
• "...the Scots, elements among the English nobility were not averse to a pre-emptive strike, either." [in my opinion, that comma at the end is unneeded].

These are simply issues to keep in mind for future editing & possible improvements. Shearonink (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 10:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

---

English invasion of Scotland (1400) → 1400 English invasion of Scotland – Per WP:NCWWW. Also, it's a more natural disambiguation than parenthetical disambiguation. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Scotland has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject England has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose It would be the only invasion that will have a title in that form. So it will be inconsistent with all other invansion, as you can see at English invasions of Scotland. The Banner talk 19:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: The proposal is inconsistent with other articles of English invasions of Scotland. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose What happened is the primary search term. Placing a date first is less search friendly. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I think the parenthetical disambig is a perfectly natural and easily comprehensible way of dealing with the topic, given that there are numerous invasion events to document. As already mentioned, consider the many parenthetical disambig exmples in use at English invasions of Scotland (currently 7, including this one). I feel that a rename and move would be stretching the interpretation of WP:NCWWW a bit too far. Cactus.man ✍ 12:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment I'm genuinely surprised at the level of opposition to this given the relevant naming convention is relatively clear and that basically every invasion list at List of invasions is in the same format (granted, a lot of those link to articles on wars rather than invasions but the established convention seems quite clear). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

How very odd. English invasions of Scotland seems to be wholly at odds with List of invasions. Why is that? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thelinks at List of invasions do not go where they appear to go. Srnec (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

?? @ User:Srnec. What exactly do you mean, I find it hard to understand your comment? The primary links wholly appear to be disambiguated to secondary targets, which in most modern browsers will be revealed upon hovering the mouse over the link, so they go exaxctly where expected. Cactus.man ✍ 20:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The list lists everything year first, but that is not how the articles are actually titled. Comments here suggest that some readers are seeing the linked text and assuming it represents the article titles. Srnec (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Not confusing at all, really (?) There must be good reasons? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

If you click on the articles linked within the list of invasions you will find out quickly there is no consensus or commonality for how articles are titled. Regards Newm30 (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Support I don't know what bonehead wrote this particular piece of junk, but its mother article, List of invasions seems to have a pretty clear consensus for its page naming convention. I would have thought the former should remain consistent with its parent. ——Serial 16:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: - Please keep your comments civil and not being abusive. Thanks in advance. Newm30 (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Newm30: Please clarify to whom, precisely, one is supposed to have been uncivil and abusive. Thanks in advance. ——Serial 14:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 you did by saying someone was a bonehead. That's not civil. Regards Newm30 (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Date is almost never used to begin article titles. That List of invasions is a chronological list. The actual articles are not those titles. Walrasiad (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

• @Newm30: please clarify who 'someone' is; I assume you refer to who wrote this particular piece of junk? Cheers! ——Serial 14:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)