Talk:Weardale campaign/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 09:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a gander at this one. Zawed (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead ...declined to attack it and the Scots declined...: suggested rephrasing to avoid the repeated close usage of declined

I would much prefer not to. The repetition is deliberate, to make it clear that both sides were following the same strategy. (And so causing a stalemate.)

Background

In May a 13-year truce was agreed. just checking, there was agreement for a truce of a specific period of time? It seems oddly precise.

Yep. That's what the source says. Nearly all late-Medieval truces were for specific periods.

The final sentence of the first paragraph seems as though it would be better placed in the next paragraph. It seems to lack a little context and needs something along the lines of Edward II's position being undermined.

Left in place, but rewritten to hopefully provide better context.

...to extend this recognition. I don't think extend is quite the right word here as it suggests that he was already recognised and it is about maintaining that status. I would suggest grant or bestow may be a better term.

Changed to "grant", although wikt:extend: "To bestow; to offer; to impart; to apply"

Prelude

I'm struggling with the relevance of the first sentence of the first para (the mention of the raid) unless the first sentence of the second para is in response to that raid? There is a date of 1 July mentioned later in the second para so presumably the assembling of the army occurred in June?

It is simply a fact. No source speculates as to how it - specifically - might link to later events; although several stress that the English were under pressure to do something about the repeated Scottish raids. I could remove it?

it was assumed that the presence of these forces on their flanks?

Done

The English set out on 1 July: this is the force in York?

Good spot - I inserted the bit before this and didn't realise how it wrecked the flow. Fixed.

that was reserved for Mortimer,[21] while Isabella?

IMO that doesn't really work, so I have made the last four words a separate sentence.

Campaign

This looks good.

Aftermath

...the 780 Hainaulters alone submitted a bill for 41,000 pounds.: It is mentioned earlier that they had a running battle with the English in York. Did they end up participating in the campaign? If not presumably this bill was for services rendered earlier in the year?

Yes. Both they and the English archers involved in the fracas participated. Whether their falling out served as a bonding exercise, a running sore or a bit of both is not recorded. I am struggling to find an explicit mention of them. We are told that le Bel accompanied them and there are multiple mentions of him. But the next specific mention of the Hainaulters I can find is when they are paid of, so I have added that.

The siege of Norham Castle continued...: No antecedence for the siege

In background: "as Edward III was being crowned a Scottish force was besieging the English-held border-castle of Norham."

Infobox

You could add the Scottish strength of 10,000 mounted men to the infobox

Oops. Added.

Other stuff

No dupe links
Image tags check out OK, but in the map image, can Stanhope be linked? It is in the text in the next section.

Added.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Zawed, much appreciated. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the changes/responses. Passing as GA as I believe that it meets the relevant criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]