Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Marshall's Elm

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion 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.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Marshall's Elm[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk)

Battle of Marshall's Elm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Sometimes described as the first engagement of the English Civil Wars, this was a victory for the better trained and led Royalist horse over a much larger force of Parliamentarians travelling across Somerset. The skirmish took place before the formal start of the war, and had no long-term tactical significance: despite their victory, the Royalists were forced out of Somerset two days later in face of overwhelming opposition. As ever, all input appreciated. Harrias talk 10:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

  • All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned.
  • Consider alt text for the photograph.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

The sources used are all solidly reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Zawed[edit]

I'm not that familiar with the topic/subject matter so my comments are more in relation to prose and clarity.

  • Lead: "recruiting men in the county.": for readers not familiar with English nomenclature, I suggest amending the first sentence of the lead to something like "near Street, in the county of Somerset, Southwest England". This gives context for "the county".
  • Background: "Tension between Parliament and King Charles...": I know it is obvious, but for avoidance of doubt, could this be amended to refer to "Tension between the English Parliament and King Charles."? Actually strike that, having thought about it more, I think it is unnecessary. Zawed (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: "Both sides were attempting to recruit the existing militia and new men.": it is not explicitly clear to me if this is in relation to the West Country or England as a whole.
    • Both, but only the local recruitment is relevant to this article. Tweaked for clarity, how is it? Harrias talk 11:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: Rushworth is used to cite the final sentence of the first paragraph. However, the citation is for a page range of 33 pages; is this correct?
    • Yes, the online archive of this does not provide specific page numbers, just the range for the entire content. Harrias talk 11:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: "Somerset; making..": not sure if this is the grammatically correct way of using the semi-colon. To my mind, "making" works if the semi-colon was replaced with a comma. On the other hand, the semi-colon works if making was replaced with something like "this made".
    • You are right, changed to a comma. Harrias talk 11:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prelude: "John Pyne and Captain John Preston...": it would be helpful to have some context for who John Pyne is. I also notice the lead refers to him as Sir John Pyne while the infobox refers to him as Colonel John Pyne.
    • Changed to refer to him as Sir throughout. I'm unsure about adding more context, as then it feels a bit odd not providing similar for Preston and Sands. Harrias talk 11:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • This suggestion is because he is the only Parliamentarian leader mentioned in the infobox. Preston and Sands aren't so I don't think it necessary to mention further details about those two. Zawed (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prelude: "...composed of three troops of cavalry and some dragoons." Suggesting rephrasing to "composed of three troops of cavalry and some dragoons, numbering around 60 to 80 in all." This is because the infobox refers to the Royalist numbers as being around 60 to 80.
  • Battle: "...was engaged in this, Lunsford...": suggest, for clarity: "was engaged in his discussion with the Parliamentarians, Lunsford..."
    • Thank you, that's better, changed. Harrias talk 11:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath: "...gather men around Wells. Groups gathered...": close usage of gather/gathered. Suggest rephrasing to remove one.
    • Changed second to "congregated". Harrias talk 11:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting little read, hope the feedback helps get this to A-Class. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC) @Zawed: Thanks for the review; I've tweaked the article accordingly. Harrias talk 11:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have responded to one point above but that doesn't affect me supporting this one. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • after the King had attempted to arrest five Members of Parliament Why exactly?
Good point, have expanded on this. Harrias talk 09:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Harrias: What do you mean by religous? Were they Catholics or was the King a Catholic or somthing else? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Nothing so simple, sadly. It mostly boiled down to the Catholic/Protestant argument, but it had become more subtle by this stage. Charles was protestant (though he had a Catholic wife), but he preferred to keep many of the Catholic practices, while the Puritan elements in Parliament wanted to remove them. There were also disagreements over the role, or even existence of Bishops within the church, which was at the heart of the Bishops' Wars, another element of the War of the Three Kingdoms. Consensus in reviews has been that trying to explain this is beyond the scope of a battle article however. Harrias talk 10:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, sounds legit. But this does not answer my question here. Why exactly tried the King to imporsen them? Did they tried to plot someone, rebel against the King or were they corrupt, disloyal or traitors to the King or was the King insane and paranoid? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Oh sorry, I see what you mean. Obviously more detail is given in the Wikilinked article provided (Five Members). I could probably work a short sentence together, but again, I'm unsure as to whether that context is significant to the scope of this battle. Harrias talk 21:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you it would be off topic. But something in me tells me we should add why he attemped to arrest them. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • May add that they tried to impeach the Queen at the time? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Because there were multiple reasons, I've kept it generic, but added "who he accused of treason". How is that? Harrias talk 22:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's much better IMO. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Somerset in the Civil War, David Underdown criticised the decision What exactly is the Somerset in the Civil War?
Clarified. Harrias talk 09:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • citing Wells' vulnerable position in the Mendip Hills --> "citing Wells's vulnerable position in the Mendip Hills"?
No reason to change it, they are interchangeable in this case. Harrias talk 09:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • until the enemy were within 120 paces Hmm 120 paces, is this about medieval paces or modern-day paces. I think there is a difference between those kinds of paces and do know how many metres is that?
It isn't defined in the source. Harrias talk 09:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tension between Parliament and King Charles escalated --> "The tension between Parliament and King Charles escalated"?
Changed. Harrias talk 09:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • force marching through corn fields about Merge corn fields.
Done. Harrias talk 09:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • their heads and weapons visible, so as to disguise --> "their heads and weapons visible, to disguise"
Good spot, done. Harrias talk 09:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Thanks, have responded to each point. Harrias talk 09:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Just wanted to check if you had any outstanding points on this one? Harrias talk 12:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5: I wonder if you feel able to either support or oppose this nomination yet? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We were talking about this when you'd send this message. It's to me good to go. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, Harrias, this looks like a tidy article to me. I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, suggest mentioning the Royalist strength, as you have for the Parliamentarian strength
  • the lead says around 25 were killed, but the body implies its was potentially 27 ("In addition to the seven killed at the battle, roughly another twenty died of their wounds"). Suggest trying to make this consistent
    • I've changed the lead to "around 27". Harrias talk 12:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the following terms appear to be overlinked: West Country, Charles I of England
    • Serves me right for copying and pasting chunks. Fixed. Harrias talk 12:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • each brought a troop of horse: suggest linking troop here
  • muskets are mentioned in the lead, but not in the body; also suggest linking musket
    • Linked, and added into the body. Harrias talk 12:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lunsford held the Royalist's fire --> "Royalists' fire"?
  • The victory provided both a tactical and strategic victory for --> "The battle provided both a tactical and strategic victory for" (to vary the language used)
    • Thank you, that is better: changed. Harrias talk 12:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • countrymen armed only with "pitchforks, dungpecks and suchlike weapons."[15] --> probably best to attribute the quote in text. For instance, "...countrymen armed according to Underdown only with "pitchforks, dungpecks and suchlike weapons.""
    • Per a comment at the Babylon Hill FAC, I've changed this to "..countrymen wielding makeshift weapons such as pitchforks." Harrias talk 12:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest adding alt text to the images: [1]
  • there are no dab links (no action required)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Marshall%27s_Elm&oldid=938407106"