Talk:English invasion of Scotland (1400)

English invasion of Scotland (1400) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 14, 2017. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Scotland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: British / European / Medieval 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

A fact from English invasion of Scotland (1400) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 December 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that King Henry IV's invasion of Scotland in 1400 has been described as "utterly futile"? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/English invasion of Scotland (1400).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Royal Households of the United Kingdom#Historical overview|Royal Household]] The anchor (#Historical overview) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

   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)[reply]

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

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

1. C. It contains no original research:

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

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]