Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Marshall's Elm/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 March 2020 [1].

Battle of Marshall's Elm[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 20:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another early skirmish of the First English Civil War. In fact, according to some historians, the first action of the war (though the fighting during the first Siege of Hull could also be given the same tagline.) A large group of raw Parliamentarian recruits were marching through Somerset when they were spotted by a Royalist scouting party. Despite being outnumbered in the region of 10 to 1, the Royalist cavalry routed the raw recruits (described as nothing more than farmers by one historian). The skirmish was of little significance, as the overwhelming antipathy towards the Royalists in Somerset forced them to withdraw to Sherborne Castle in neighbouring Dorset.

The article underwent a GAN and recently passed a MILHIST A-class review. As always, all feedback will be gratefully received. Harrias talk 20:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

  • All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2020 (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) 20:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Very little to quibble about here. A few comments:

  • link ambush in the lead
  • could you add something like "In preparation for/Given the likelihood of conflict with the Parliamentarians, Charles appointed..." Otherwise the build-up to fighting breaking out is lost
  • suggest linking levying to Conscription#Medieval levies
  • decap Royal assent
  • what is a "a collection of arms"?
    • I've rephrased to "held a meeting to collect arms", how is that? Harrias talk 08:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest The Parliamentarians' superior recruitment→The success of the Parliamentarians' recruiting
  • no first name for Sands?
  • link South Petherton
  • link Street, Somerset
  • drop the comma from "and the experienced soldier, Henry Lunsford"
  • suggest "Among those captured were two of the Parliamentarian officers, Captains Preston and Sands"
    • I've trimmed this down, but not so much as suggested, to "Among those captured were the two officers, Preston and Sands." Harrias talk 08:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "crossed the Mendips" is this the hills or a stream? If the former, suggest "the Mendip Hills"

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for the review; I have adopted each of your points as suggested, other than where I have provided a note above. Harrias talk 08:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Harrias, I'm not seeing these edits? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: How bizarre. Tried again. Harrias talk 08:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon. At first glance, perhaps link Royalists and Parliamentarians in infobox and image caption?
  • " In his book, Somerset in the Civil War, David Underdown" Perhaps say "the historian David Underdown" and add date for book?
  • "but the general population of the county was more sympathetic towards Parliament than the King" Could we get some reason or context for this?
  • "led by William Strode" Some people mentioned are presented with occupation or title, some are not. perhaps present all?
    • I've added a short descriptor. Harrias talk 10:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the casualties be listed in the infobox?
    • Because there are no figures given for the Royalists, I prefer not to provide uneven data in the infobox; what details we have are present in the lead and the body. Harrias talk 10:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Thanks for the review; I have responded to each point above. Harrias talk 09:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looking good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "during the build-up to the First English Civil War." It would be helpful to give the date the war started.
  • "In 1642, disagreements between the English Parliament and its monarch on religious, fiscal and legislative matters had been ongoing for over half a century." I am doubtful about "over half a century". This implies an increase in disagreements late in Elizabeth's reign, and there is no evidence for this that I can find.
  • @Dudley Miles: I'm happy to be corrected on this. To provide some context, the source provided states "Since the later years of the reign of Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603) English Puritans had been agitating for change in the rituals and doctrines of the Church of England." and "The solutions that she crafted worked well for most of her reign, but by the 1580s and 1590s the Puritan movement had gathered increasing strength in Parliament." Looking through it, I have possibly introduced an inaccuracy through my attempts at brevity, and conflated increasing general tensions with increased tensions between Parliament and the monarch. Would your suggestion to be to reduce the time-frame, or rephrase the statement? Harrias talk 12:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You obviously know more about the period than I do, but my impression is that even though support for Puritanism was rising, the causes of the civil war were rather the belief of the Stuart kings in the divine right of kings and consequent attempts to be absolute rulers raising taxes without the consent of Parliament. If so, the tensions between king and Parliament should be dated to James I's accession - if you agree and have a good source. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Modern historians tend to agree that the conflict was multi-causal, with both taxation and religious reformation as driving forces. How much precedence is given to each varies depending on historian. Essentially, our conversation is a microcosm of one of the biggest academic debates about the topic; what weight should be given to short-term and long-term causes. Tim Harris wrote an excellent journal article about it in 2015, but sadly, it doesn't really bring us any closer to an answer.
    As a compromise, because I've written and re-written this reply countless times over the last hour, how would you feel about:
  • "Disagreements between the English Parliament and its monarch on religious, fiscal and legislative matters had been ongoing since at least 1603."
The current source would still work for that, mostly because of the "at least" get-out. Harrias talk 14:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, though I would profer "conflict" to "disagreement" as there have always been disagreements - a point which did not occur to me before! However, I will leave you to decide. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or worked in industries depressed by Royal policies" Why is "Royal" capitalised? I am never sure of the rules but it looks wrong to me.
  • "Hertford sent Hopton to Shepton" I would say with the cavalry, as you make clear below.
  • The article looks fine apart from these minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ruby2010[edit]

What an interesting topic! Just adding some comments here; happy to discuss/clarify further in case of disagreements:

  • Is there any way you could split up the first sentence into two? Or perhaps omit "on August 22" I'm not sure how much that last part adds to clarity of the topic.
    • "on August 22" was actually added in response to a point raised by Dudley above. I have rearranged this to fit in the second sentence, where hopefully it is less busy, and make more sense. Harrias talk 12:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the historian David Underdown criticised the decision... I think perhaps this should be present tense.
  • On 30 July, the Parliamentarians... Remind the reader what year we are in?

Minor quibbles, really. Mostly I think the article is in good shape, and am prepared to support. Well done! Ruby2010 (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruby2010: Thanks for your review; I have replied to each point above. Harrias talk 12:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I support this nomination for promotion. Ruby2010 (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Hi Harrias, I was looking to promote this but reading through I feel we should hear about Pyne's fate as leader of the Parliamentarian formation. It sounds like he was with the main formation while the vanguard caught the ambush but a sentence about it might help -- unless I missed something... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: There is no specific mention of Pyne made in the immediate aftermath of the skirmish. We know that he was present at the gathering at Wells on 5 August though; from which it is clear that he was not taken prisoner. I have added a line in the aftermath section: "Pyne, who had evaded capture during the skirmish at Marshall's Elm, held joint command of part of the force with Strode.". Harrias talk 21:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, forgive me for asking -- I thought I could get a download of the book to see for myself -- but does that source explicitly say he evaded capture at Marshall's Elm or does it only say he held joint command at Wells? If the latter then best we just say that and let the reader work out the rest for themselves. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable point. I've trimmed it down to "Pyne held joint command of part of the force with Strode." Harrias talk 07:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, that all goes some way to addressing my concern and we can't say more than the sources allow us. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Marshall%27s_Elm/archive1&oldid=945664540"