Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Neville's Cross/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2018 [1].

Battle of Neville's Cross[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a battle from Edward III's annus mirabilis of 1346. During it the English defeated the French dauphin at the siege of Aiguillon, the French king at the Battle of Crécy, and the Scottish king at Neville's Cross. By the end of the year they were besieging Calais, which they were to take and hold for two hundred years. A large and well equipped Scottish army marched into England, spurred by Philip VI of France to intervene under the terms of the Auld Alliance in order to take pressure off northern France. Little opposition was expected, but the English marcher lords raised an army half the size of the Scots, marched rapidly north and met them on the edge of the northern English city of Durham.

The Scots mishandled their army, they were goaded by longbow fire into attacking across broken ground, part of their force fled without engaging and they were routed with heavy loss. The Scottish king was taken prisoner; he was to be held for eleven years. The battle was part of the Second War of Scottish Independence, which continued, bloodily, but strategically the English had cleared their rear and were able to concentrate on the war with France.

The article has just completed an A class review and I am hopeful that it is up to scratch. It is my first submission for FA, so be gentle with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article got a pretty thorough going-over at Milhist ACR, so hopefully most of what gets picked up here will be prose-related. I have a few comments:

  • I don't think the years of reign are needed in the lead
Removed. Inserted after first mention in main body. Let me know if I have misunderstood and should simply have deleted.
  • remind me why Scottish King is capitalised?
It seems to have happened during ACR. Relooking at it I can't think why. Done.
  • suggest "InBy 1346, England"
Done.
  • unless we end up with more Philip's and David's the ordinal can probably be dropped after introduction
Gah. I will if you insist. In a previous ACR an experienced assessor asked me to always include ordinals and I have consistently done it in all of my articles since. I don't see that it harms, so long as I am consistent, and it does occasionally avoid confusion: Edward's son (the Black Prince) was called Edward; the English-backed pretender to the Scottish throne was King Edward (Balliol); the king of Navarre at the time, who swung between England and France and who had arguably the best claim to the throne of France, was King Philip. And so on.
I don't insist, but be consistent. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest Gascony instead of "south-west France" if that is what is being referred to
No, it means south-west France. As it says in the note straight after, a major part of the French difficulty was the loss of Poitiers, the capital of Poitou, 200km from Gascony.
  • note 3 should be "military service of approximately..."
I changed that, reread it, and realised that I actually meant "in". If you don't think that it works, I could easily rephrase.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest changing the notes to lower alpha instead of [note 1] etc, as using numerical notes and numerical footnotes together is potentially confusing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This would also use less space, [a] instead of [note 1], and therefore break up the flow of the text less. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is my aging eyesight, but I really dislike notes in the style [a]. I all too frequently read straight past them, either not noticing them or mistaking them for citations and am left not fully understanding something. The point of a note, it seems to me, is to attract the readers attention to something which may be of interest but which is not essential. This will break up the flow of the text, that is part of the point. If I am going to make it easy to overlook them, why am I including them at all. I note that the Wikipedia how-to guide on creating notes - WP:REFGROUP - uses the long form that I adopt, while accepting that this is not definitive.
Generally, IMO notes are often overdone, as they sometimes include information that is germane to the subject of the article, and should be in the body rather than a note. I tend to use notes mainly for technical matters, and this explains our differences in this area. Personally, I would have thought that note 1 could be included in the body, for example. As long as you have not included information in a note that really should be in the text, it isn't a problem, I just suggest that you re-examine the information in the notes, and ensure it couldn't be given in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker Thanks for taking this on. You seem to be impressively tireless. Responses to your comments above. I am not always agreeing with you, but given my inexperience I am more than open to discussion/persuasion. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Everyone sees things differently, and I am trying to emphasise that the way you choose to do things can be more or less useful to the average reader, and you should challenge your choices regularly, as we are not average readers. You'll no doubt get a different perspective from other reviewers. IMHO, the idea is to question your editing practice and improve as you go. Things I did with my first FA, I've gone back and fixed, and wouldn't dream of doing now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: One of the best things about editing Wikipedia is the amount of genuinely well intentioned challenging that I receive. If I ever respond negatively to anyone's friendly challenge to anything I do, please trout me. Certainly I winced a couple of months ago when I looked back over my first half dozen GAs. No doubt I will do the same with this in six months time. Ah well, I suppose that means that I am improving. I am by now quite used to telling other editors to aim their prose at the mythical ordinary reader, but strongly suspect that I do not manage to be as critical of my own work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notes reduced from six to two in line with your suggestion above.
  • link Kirk Merrington, as that appears to be the relevant village
I thought that I had. Strange. Done.
  • not sure about the capitalisation of Cathedral here. Suggest using Durham Cathedral in full, as that is the proper noun
You are the second experienced editor with that view, so clearly I am wrong. Done.
  • once you've established them as battles, use that term, rather than units or formations
Done.
  • the commanders of the English forces are bestrewn with commas. Suggest treating them the same as the Scottish battles to break it up a bit
Done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neville is given as Lord Ralph Neville, and then as Ralph, Baron Neville in a very short period of time. Was he elevated in the interim?
A battlefield promotion? No. Consistency imposed.
  • perhaps "Neville remained in overall command." as you've already said he was in command of the force.
Done.
  • suggest "Their fire prompted the Scots to attack."
Wording changed. You may wish to check.
  • which Scottish battle was the one that was first to reach the English lines? Randolph's?
Yes. Done.
  • suggest ", the third battle, under the Earl of March (you've already linked Dunbar, so a link to the title probably isn't needed here)..."
Done.
  • there's a David that needs a II
Done.
  • since he's been introduced, "John Randolph, Earl of Moray" could just be "the Earl of Moray", in the list of dead notables
I tried it, but my eye kept stumbling over the inconsistent naming of the two earls. But I am probably too close, so if you are (fairly) sure I'll change it.
  • link William Douglas, 1st Earl of Douglas
He's already linked, as William Douglas, Lord of Liddesdale. (Stumbling across the English in the mist.)
  • drawn then hanged? I thought it was the other way around?
Well now. There is some modern confusion around this, specifically around the meaning of "drawn". The first paragraph of Hanged, drawn and quartered#Execution of the sentence discusses this. My source, Sumption, states "drawn, hanged and quartered" and I am not inclined to argue with the penal pedantry of a member of the UK Supreme Court. I also note that the article on him (John Graham, Earl of Menteith), differently sourced, uses the same order.
  • the indenting of the Sources is rather odd. Generally they are bulleted rather than indented.
This is genuinely intended to be helpful for the reader. It may, again, be my failing eyesight, but I struggle with Wikipedia's bullet pointed bibliographies. I will scan up and down with my eye not picking out the one I want, especially when there are several works by the same or, worse, similarly named, author(s). I have seen indention used in several articles and use it in mine when the number of references goes over 12-15. I find that with most or all of the relevant surnames protruding it is much easier to pick out the one wanted. I would actually like this to be generally adapted as good practice as an accessibility issue.
  • Do any of the Further reading sources have anything unique to say about the lead-up to the battle, the battle itself, or the aftermath?
Being critical, and thinking about reliability, no. So I have deleted. I have used one to source the addition "The site of the battle has been listed as a registered battlefield by Historic England."

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: All comments addressed. See above. An embarrassingly high level of sloppiness from me. Thanks for bearing with it. I am telling myself that from here I can only improve. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fresh eyes always pick up things we miss. This is an excellent article, well done. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Thank you for that, and thanks for the support vote. It is in good shape now. However, I do enough work at GOCE to recognise lack of rigour when I see it. I can do better than that, and shall try to next time. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

It seems to me that this article meets all the FA criteria. A few minor quibbles, which don't affect my support:

  • Lead
    • "approximately 6–7,000 men" – I am not at all expert in the arcana of the Manual of Style, but this looked a bit odd to me, and I wondered if "6,000–7,000" might be more the thing. Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
You are quite right - MOS:NUMRANGE. I should have known that. Done.
    • "Strategically this freed ..." – I had to stop in mid-sentence and go back to the beginning to get the intended meaning; a comma after "against France" would break the sentence into its constituent parts more clearly.
Done.
  • Background
    • It's unlikely that many readers will imagine King David's army was massing in Western Australia, but I might blue-link Perth nonetheless.
Done.
  • Prelude
    • I'm not convinced by the quotation marks in the fourth sentence: the sources you mention didn't unanimously use the exact words you quote. I don't think anyone is going to accuse you of plagiarism if you remove the quotation marks.
Sumption has exactly those words. But I typo'ed the reference; I had page 551, it should have been 550. The first sentence of the first full paragraph here. He references the single sentence to the hilt. Given its context in the article I am unsure which way to go and would appreciate your advice in the light of the new information. And apologies for cocking up the citation. (My other source, Wagner, describes it as "the largest Scottish invasion force of the century", as I suspect you have already discovered.) Perhaps I should simply reword?
I'm not doubting that all your sources corroborate the statement. My only (minor) point was that what your text says is they all used the actual words in quotation marks, which of course only one of them did. Knocking off the quotes will remove the objection, and, as I say, is not going to get you accused of plagiarism. Tim riley talk 21:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Quote marks removed, text slightly tweaked. Forgive my first FAC nerves.
    • "Richmond" – London SW14 is not as remote as Western Australia, but it would do no harm to mention in passing that the one mentioned here is the Richmond in Yorkshire.
Good point. Done.
  • Battle
    • I think the sentence beginning "Seeing their first attack..." is trying to do too much, and I might turn the parenthetic description of Robert Stewart into a footnote or by some other means move this information from this rather involved sentence.
Another good point. Done.
    • "less than 100 were taken prisoner" – there are those who get frightfully exercised about "less than x", when x refers to people or anything capable of being enumerated, and insist on "fewer". There is a perfectly sustainable case that "less" governs the number itself rather than the people or things numbered. Nonetheless, I find it saves grief to preempt attempts at pedantry by going for "fewer" in such cases.
You are quite correct. (Only this morning I corrected another editor doing the same thing in a GAN.) Sloppy of me. Thank you.
  • Aftermath
    • "Legend has it" strikes me as bit of a cliché: I'd prefer something less hackneyed, such as "according to legend".
On reflection (geddit?) this is a bit WP:Peacock, so reworded.
    • "large scale raids" – I'd be inclined to hyphenate this double-barrelled attributive adjective.
This is a marginal judgement call, IMHO. Unless you wish to push it I am inclined to leave as is.
    • "an old Anglo-Saxon stone cross" – perhaps lose the "old"? Not many new ones about.
Most sources refer to it that way. I assume to distinguish the old cross, which was Anglo-Saxon, from the new one installed by Neville. Ie there was an "old" cross on the site, later replaced by a "new" one. "old" in the sense of no longer extant, replaced by another; rather than aged. I could reword?
As long as you're happy with it, that's fine with me. Tim riley talk 21:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "St. Margaret" and "St. Cuthbert" – not sure why the antiquated full stops are wanted.
Done. (I was brought up with unstopped punctuation: eg, ie, etc, P G Woodehouse, etc, and struggle a little with what seems to me Wikipedia's slightly random approach.)
Me too! Don't get me started on the absurdly antiquated punctuation Wikipedia insists on! I blame Uncle Sam. Tim riley talk 21:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes
    • Note 5 – "A significant number..." – what did the number signify? A pity to waste the word "significant" as a mere synonym for "large". (I think the other "significant", in the lead, is fine, because the significance is evident.)
Tricky. "No less than 30" who reported their prisoners failed to hand them over; at least on first asking. The number of prisoners unreported is, obviously, unknown. (Cus they weren't reported.) But there were a number of attested cases and the (believed) total was high enough to infuriate Edward - at least one lord had all of his lands confiscated - and significant enough that a royal commission was set up. There is a lot of detail in King. So while very much taking your point I am struggling for a more felicitous phrase. Suggestions would be welcome.
Though I dislike seeing "significant" used unthinkingly when "large" or "important" is meant, I don't think it does any real harm in your note, especially given what you say about the difficulty finding a more satisfactory and accurate word here. "Considerable" came to mind, but if you don't think that fills the bill, by all means leave this "significant". Tim riley talk 21:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Nothing, as I say, that stops me supporting promotion, but perhaps worth considering. I enjoyed this article, and learned a lot, too. Applause from me. Tim riley talk 11:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tim riley: Many thanks for the assessment, the insightful comments and the kind words. Responses to your points are above, and include a couple of areas where I would appreciate your further input. |Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Tim. Quote amended as noted above. The other two I am inclined to leave as is, but I will sleep on and review. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Urselius[edit]

It appears to me to meet all FA criteria, it is a succinct account of the battle and is well written. I have only two minor quibbles.

  • The sentence: "Another 3,000 Yorkshiremen were en route to reinforce the northerners." This could be construed as implying that Yorkshiremen are not northerners - and woe betide anyone who implied that. I would suggest 'the northern army' or 'the other northerners' be introduced.
I am tempted to stand by my entirely accurate description, but I shall bow to your narrow provincialism.
  • The English combination of well-armoured, dismounted men-at-arms and longbowmen was still a relatively novel military partnership. The Scottish had fewer men-at-arms, being a poorer country, and the bulk of their army would have been spearmen. It might be worthwhile mentioning the contrast in troop types between the two armies - if suitable sources are available. Urselius (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are they heck. At GAN someone asked after details of "Many had modern weapons and armour supplied by France." But that sentence, and the English being "dismayed" is the sum total of what I can find on equipment. I could have a very convincing stab at how the two armies were equipped, even the proportions of troop types. I would be fairly confident about it. But it would be OR. I could even source it, but that would be the more popular authors making their own informed guesses. You will have noticed the absence of the word 'schiltron' from the article. Because I can't source it, even though I am certain they were there.
You may have gathered that I am frustrated about having had to gloss over the actual crunch of the battle, but if the sources ain't there, they just ain't there.
Happy to debate this further and would love to find something. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

The infobox image needs a proper description template on Commons (and could need a link to an online source, if possible). The rest looks good, sourcing and licensing-wise. FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FunkMonk. Thanks for taking on the image review. I hope that you will bear with me while I try to climb the learning curve - I only learnt last week how to add a US PD tag. (On this very image.) By "a proper description template" do you mean something like the below? Which is taken from the Commons information on a different image from the same chronicle.
File information
Description

English: French army besieging the citadel of Auberoche, catapulting an English messenger over the walls

Source

http://www.guerre-de-cent-ans.com/1337-1364.php

Date

Unknown date

Author

style="background: #EEE; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center; " class="table-Un­known" | author

Permission
(Reusing this file)

{{PD-old-100-1923}}


Yep, exactly. FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Done, I think. I would appreciate a check. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I would incorporate the text hanging above the template into it, though. Seems you already put it in a note, so it can just be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Oops. Sorry. Over focused. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Good. Thanks. Any chance of a "Support"? ;-) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to read the article for that (can't support based on an image review), and that was actually what I was going to do until I saw it already had three reviews (which usually means a pass). But I'll have a look if it drags out. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: No, no. My error. My first FAC; I thought that an image review needed a support, as it does at ACR (at MilHist anyway). Thanks again for the input and for bearing with me. So, fingers crossed, a source review, which is the thing I am probably most relaxed about, and I have my first FA. Given the quality of the three reviewers who have contributed so far I am hopeful that they will be sufficient. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that surprises me, actually, since I've often seen you around the review pages. Well, good luck, having reviewed so much also gives good insight in the process! It's an interesting article, so I might come back for a review of the text. FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Thanks. I have been getting my QPQ in early. And, as you suggest, picking up tips. I got 30 GA under my belt before submitting my first ACR, so now have a queue of wanabe ACRs. I am restricting myself to two at a time, and will roll them straight into FAC, if there is a space. You may want to hold back, or look at one of my ACRs (Siege of Berwick (1333) and Battle of Auberoche). I anticipate wanting to call in some favours for FAC assessing before too long. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See you there! FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if this Commons image could be of use:[2]
Thank you for that. I am not sure how I missed it. Unfortunately its nice neat depiction does not match any account of the battle I have come across and bears little relation to the account in this article. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, Gog, just a couple of minor nitpicky comments. Apologies if these have been raised and discussed earlier in the review, I typed these out whilst travelling, so these may have progressed since I wrote them. Anyway, hopefully they help in some regard: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the References/Sources, there usually isn't a need for accessdates for courtesy links (see Brown)
Removed
  • remove "p. 330" for Maxwell in the long citation (in the Sources section) as it is not required here
Done.
  • slightly inconsistent: "Faber and Faber" or "Faber & Faber"?
I just copy what WorldCat says ;) . Now consistent.
  • the hyphenation of some of the ISBNs appears to be different (e.g. compare Sumption 1990 with Wagner)
Frankly, I am all at sea with hyphenating ISBNs. Now both consistent and correct, but I am unsure if FA compliant.
  • Fraser appears to be self published -- is there a need to use this, or is there anything that can be pointed to IOT demonstrate it is a reliable source?
Well, now. The evidence is a bit bitty, but the Sir William Fraser Chair of Scottish History and Palaeography is named after him, see here. The Dictionary of National Biography seems to like him, see here. Note that he drew up most of the reports on Scottish historical manuscripts for the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts for twenty years. He was the (full time) deputy keeper of sassines and subsequently deputy-keeper of the records.
There is more. Let me know if you would like me to dig it out.
Given that, it seems ok to me. Equally, Fraser is only being used once now, along with a ref to another source, so it should be ok, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information cited to refs 26, 27 and 28 is sourced to works published between 1776 and 1913 - is there anything more recent that could reference this?
This came up at ACR. I commented then "Dalrymple (1776) and Fraser (1878) are only used to support the list of Scottish prisoners. Older sources are fonder of listing noble involvement than more modern ones and I consider them reliable for this, limited, purpose." For Fraser, see above. I have, a little reluctantly, replaced Dalrymple and Fraser with Oman. (I am not keen on using Oman as I don't really trust him. But that is probably just me and he is widely considered a reliable source.)
Ack, no worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maxwell - remove the space before the colon in the title
Done.
  • "J. Maclehose and sons" --> capital letter for "Sons"
Done
  • long as possible.[37][25] --> suggest reordering the refs numerically
Drat. I thought that I had caught all of those. Done.
Good day to you AustralianRupert. It is good to hear from you. And many thanks for stoping by to look at my first FAC. I am nervous, as you might expect, and a little annoyed at all of the things I have missed. Your points addressed above. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple of follow up points: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dalrymple is now not used as a citation, so should probably be in a Further reading section
I have removed him. He was only there to evidence the Scottish dead, now covered by Oman. He doesn't otherwise add much IMO.
  • Note 2 appears unreferenced - suggest adding a citation
Oops. Done.
  • Citation 19 (Prestwich & Rollason 1998) lacks page numbers -- is it possible to add these in?
Sloppy, sloppy. Done. Thanks for picking that up. Embarrassing.
@AustralianRupert: Additional points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. All my points have been addressed, so I have added my support. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done[edit]

  • Lead says half a mile from Durham, text says less than half a mile - which is correct?
Done.
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
Done.
  • Previous discussions around Measuringworth have raised doubts as to its accuracy and value
I didn't know that, but am not surprised. Nevertheless I think that it helpful to give a reader an idea of the value of money amounts, both in inflation terms and earning power, however arguably flawed the methodology. A raw figure, 100,000 marks, or even £1,000, is either meaningless or positively misleading in my opinion. Would you like me to take the inflation and earning power comparisons and notes out? I notice that the MoS says under money that "In some cases, it may be appropriate to provide a conversion accounting for inflation or deflation over time. See See {{Inflation}} and {{Inflation-fn}}."
I think the note about expected wage is useful. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN15: what is the significance of "n"? Is it a footnote on the given page? If so, suggest saying that explicitly
Done.
  • The Boardman and Webster refs are both to ODNB but don't match in formatting
Webster removed.
  • Don't mix {{citation}} and the cite family of templates
Done.
  • Why include county for Ware but not East Linton? Why country instead of county for Harlow?
Done.
  • Brown: don't be over-precise on publication dates for books
Done.
  • The Sadler ISBN corresponds with an edition from a different publisher than the one listed, and the Sumption citation lists the same ISBN.
Done.
Er, looks like the Sadler ISBN still corresponds to a different publisher edition? Sumption is now correct. Nikkimaria
@Nikkimaria: According to WorldCat they match - click on the link. Unless I am being unusually stupid - which I am perfectly willing to believe. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Not sure Worldcat is correct on that point - multiple ISBN searches, including the Worldcat link from Special:BookSources, say that ISBN is for the Routledge edition. Can you verify in whichever edition you consulted what the correct ISBN and publisher are?
@Nikkimaria: I am a little confused, but if that is not the ISBN, then it is 9781405840224. Although I note that Google Books gives Pearson Education as the publisher and 2006 as the date, while WorldCat gives Pearson/Longman and 2005. I am not sure what to make of that, and suspect that this discrepancy may be why I ducked the issue and attempted to refer to a different edition; I don't recall. I have not, yet, changed the ISBN in the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of discrepancy, we should include the publisher and ISBN of whichever edition was actually consulted, as recorded in that edition. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I only added it a week ago, in response to a request on this page. I am not sure how I botched it, but have now redone it from scratch. (It is only there to establish that Robert was David's nephew and I could easily lose it, but it is now a challenge.) I have copied the ISBN directly from the title page, so hopefully this is now settled. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC) (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria. Thanks for taking this on for my first FAC, and apologies for the large number of beginners errors. I look forward to the results of your spot checks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Hi there. You are usually remarkably prompt with your responses, so I hope that you won't think that I am hassling you if I give you a reminder. If you are aware of the position and I am in a queue, apologies. (My first FAC and this is the last "tick" needed, so I am probably exhibiting an unbecoming puppy-like over enthusiasm.) Gog the Mild (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GtM, looks like the point about MeasuringWorth above is still outstanding? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria. As I said in response above, "I notice that the MoS says under money that 'In some cases, it may be appropriate to provide a conversion accounting for inflation or deflation over time.' " The MoS then refers to the template I use. I also explained that in this case I consider it appropriate: "I think that it helpful to give a reader an idea of the value of money amounts, both in inflation terms and earning power, however arguably flawed the methodology. A raw figure, 100,000 marks, or even £1,000, is either meaningless or positively misleading in my opinion." I also asked if, in spite of this and to move the review along: "Would you like me to take the inflation and earning power comparisons and notes out?"

If there is anything missing from my response that leaves the point outstanding then I am no doubt being my usual slow-on-the-uptake self and would appreciate your rephrasing the question/point. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right. What I was saying was that the earning power comparison ("To give a very rough idea of earning power" etc) was useful. I don't agree that the inflation bit provides significant value on top of that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria OK. I think that I was missing the point because the MoS explicitly permits the inflation bit, but the earning power comparison was my own cheeky addition. Personally I think that the inflation template is, in this specific case "appropriate" in line with the MoS. And considerably more immediately informative than the EPC. I think that explaining why would just be going over ground already covered more eruditely elsewhere. If it is a deal breaker for my first FAC, then obviously it goes out, MoS or not; just let me know. (It is 1.00am here so if there is an 8 hour delay to my response it is not because I am sulking. ) Gog the Mild (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, let's see if anyone else wants to weigh in on this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2018 (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_Neville%27s_Cross/archive1&oldid=952886363"