Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Capture of Wakefield

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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Capture of Wakefield[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk)

Capture of Wakefield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The capture of Wakefield, in Yorkshire, featured two of the more prominent commanders from the First English Civil War. Sir Thomas Fairfax, after nearly getting himself captured in this engagement, went on to become the commander-in-chief of parliament's New Model Army which effectively won the war. George Goring was taken prisoner at Wakefield, had some success at Marston Moor, but ultimately failed in southwest England, and escaped to France claiming ill-health. The capture of Wakefield itself was significant for the scale of the victory, and the number of prisoners Fairfax was able to take, but territoriality was of little consequence.

This is the first of the Civil War engagements that I have brought to A-class review since the Sieges of Taunton back in 2015, but hopefully the first of many, so all comments will be gratefully received, not just for this article, but to help me form and refine the others. Harrias talk 10:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:A-Miraculous-Victory.jpg is tagged as lacking author info and needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Nikkimaria. I knew this image was going to be raised as an issue, but I wasn't quite sure what was best to do with it, and so I figured I'd wait for the review! Would the correct author be Ferdinando Lord Fairfax (as the writer of the words), Edward Husbands (as the person who had it published), or the person who took the photograph? I'm guessing possibly the first, but I'm unsure? Harrias talk 21:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er... the tagging's fine, but I'm a bit skeptical of that author lifespan! Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha ha ha, there might have been a minor typo there! Fixed it now, cheers. Harrias talk 21:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

I assessed this at GAN and thought well of it. Some useful expansion since then.

  • The strength of each side should be given in the lead, preferably in the first paragraph.
  • Parliamentary losses, or lack of, should be noted in the lead; perhaps at the very end?
  • You mix "Parliamentary" and "Parliamentarian". While I am not bothered, there are those who would want consistency.
    • I'm not against this, but will leave it pending further opinion. Harrias talk 10:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "raised his banner" While this is strictly correct, is the Royal Standard not more commonly referred to as a standard?
  • "Sir John Hotham, 1st Baronet" I think that he can be Wikilinked down to Sir John Hotham.
  • "(formally Queen Mary)" Optional: insert 'known as'.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "went on the attack to try and take" Optional: → 'went on the attack in an attempt to take'.
    • Yes, that's an improvement, changed. Harrias talk 13:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dame Mary Bolles, 1st Baronetess" Abbreviate to Dame Mary Bolles?
  • Perhaps a comma after "Heath Hall"?
  • "Bolles was a generous host, and in his history of Wakefield ... " may cause a double take in a reader. (It did in this one.) Possibly move the "generous host" bit to the previous sentence?
    • I've switched this around instead, how is that? Harrias talk 13:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his own adjutant" Delete "own".
  • "After marching overnight ... met ... at midnight" I am not sure that marching until midnight (in May) counts as "marching overnight". Especially as they then marched for a further 4 hours to "just before dawn".
    • Changed to "an evening march". Harrias talk 13:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two sentences in a row begin with "After ... "
    • I've cut out "After being.." from the second sentence, how's that? Harrias talk 13:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from Howley Hall itself" Delete "itself".
  • "The horse were split into eight troops of cavalry and three troops of dragoons. Sir Thomas Fairfax had overall command of the force, while also leading four troops of the horse; the other four troops being under the command of Sir Henry Foulis." You have defined the horse as including the dragoons, but don't account for them; so you can't use "the other" in "the other four troops [of the horse]".
    • Eugh. Switched to "four troops of the cavalry". This ambiguity among the sources of what they mean by horse is doing my head in! Harrias talk 13:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "away from Wakefield" Delete "away".
  • "Writing years later" Do we know how many?
    • No, but I'll see if I can find it. Harrias talk 13:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Modern historians vary in their accounts of his condition;" ";" → ':'; replace the comma after "weekend" with a semi colon.
  • "though both his father and deputy" Insert 'his' before "deputy".
  • You need a comma after "Francis Mackworth".
  • "All Saints church" Upper case C for church.
  • "The remaining soldiers in the garrison soon capitulated, either escaping or surrendering" The first half of this states that they all capitulated; the second half that some escaped. Which?
    • Fair enough, I can see the ambiguity. I meant capitulated, as in "stopped resisting", but given another definition is specifically surrendering, I've switched it to "gave up their resistance", how's that?
  • "by 9 am, the Parliamentarians held the garrison" Do you mean 'held the town'?
  • "By May 1646, King Charles I surrendered" "By" → 'In'.
  • IMO the first two sentences of the last paragraph should be deleted. Their connection to the rest of the article is tenuous.
    • I take your point, but given that the background introduces the general state of the war in the region, I felt that the aftermath should do the same, hence this part. On the other hand, as I set out at above, I'm partly here to learn what is and isn't appropriate in these articles, so if this is felt to be too much information, then I'm happy to remove it. Harrias talk 13:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fine. Thanks. I feel a little petty writing this, but the last point - the only one preventing an enthusiastic "Support" - is a real sticking point for me. A2 includes "and does not go into unnecessary detail" and I reckon that does. Let's see if others feel differently, or if we can form a consensus. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. We're here to refine and improve the articles; getting a little 'A-class disc' or a 'Featured star' is just a happy by-product. Let's wait and see what anyone else says. From your personal point of view, would you be any happier with a shorter version, something like "By the end of 1644, an alliance between the English parliament and the Scottish Covenanters delivered most of the north of England for parliament." Or do you just feel it should be omitted, end of? Harrias talk 13:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Omitted. Although I would be happier with that; it is less tangential than currently. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, that was my ambiguous wording again! I should have said "would you be happy with", rather than "happier with", so your direct answer is what I was after, thanks. Harrias talk 14:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chewing this over, if you are happy to boil the two sentences in question down to 'By the end of 1644, an alliance between the English parliament and the Scottish Covenanters delivered most of the north of England for parliament.' then it is probably not 'unfocused' enough for me to legitimately oppose. So if you want to do that, I will then support. Mind, I think that 'By the end of 1644, most of the north of England had been captured by parliamentarian forces.' or something similar would be even better. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look over a variety of battle Featured articles, some of your own, and some others. It's clear looking through them that consensus sits on your side, and reading through this article again, the mention of the Covenanters in particularly does seem excessive. I have just realised that those two sentences included Fairfax at Marston Moor, so I was considering: "By the end of 1644, aided by Fairfax's decisive victory at Marston Moor, most of the north of England had been captured by parliamentarian forces." Harrias talk 21:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like an editor who uses my articles as a yardstick of good practice. I doubt their judgement, but I like them. Yes, that last suggestion is just the sort of thing I would expect. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Done. Harrias talk 06:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Hello Harrias I'm happy to hear about your return in nominating articles. Of course in October the quarterly reviewing awards will take place and I do have some eyes on some reviews including yours. If you do not mind I'd probably have a review tomorrow due the last days of the drive and other nominations who are waiting longer than this one. Do not worry I'll get this one probably tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @CPA-5: All that graph shows is that 19 years ago, there was very little difference between the two, and that they were trending towards a merge. I maintain that there is no consensus to change. Harrias talk 09:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • returned south, his wife, Henrietta Maria (formally known as Queen Mary) Why formally? In her article, it states that she still was married with the King?
    • As you will have seen, the Wikipedia article is at Henrietta Maria of France, she is commonly referred to in sources as Henrietta Maria, and she did not self identify as Queen Mary. I wouldn't have included it at all, except that a few (mostly contemporary) sources do use Queen Mary, and so I felt it provided useful context. Harrias talk 21:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and reestablished the West Riding of Yorkshire for parliament American reestablished.
    • Changed, though either spelling is perfectly acceptable in British English. Harrias talk 21:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, I changed it already. Harrias talk 09:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Royalist outpost at Stanley, roughly 2.5 miles (4.0 km) from Wakefield Could you round the unnecessary nought.
  • he led a counterattack on horseback American counterattack.
  • The horse were split into eight troops Is it me or is the word "horse" a singular and the verb should be was?
    • "horse plural: cavalry" This is a minefield. Short answer is that "were" is fine. Long answer is that either "were" or "was" could be used depending on the specific meaning being conveyed. In this case, I think that "were" is more appropriate, to account for the physical splitting of the group of people. Harrias talk 21:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • barricade to clear enough room for the cavalry to break through Merge "break through".
    • No, "breakthrough" is the noun, "break through" is the verb. Harrias talk 21:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was anything I've got for now. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review; I've responded to each point in turn above, though I have to say that I have disagreed with most of the suggestions. Harrias talk 21:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a short note to any reviewers that I am going away for a few days, so won't be able to respond to any further comments until Sunday at the earliest. Harrias talk 17:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article looks in good shape. I have a few comments:

  • just be careful about the use of "foot" here, as it is British Army jargon. The use of "foot" is a bit of assumed knowledge regarding another name for infantry in the British context of the era, and infantry are referred to as that, as foot, and some as musketeers. Are they all the same thing in this context, or are some of the infantry only equipped with edged weapons? Suggest adding (foot) after infantry, just using infantry throughout, or some other formulation.
    • For this article, at least, I've switched to infantry throughout. Harrias talk 12:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "under the command of his father, Lord Fairfax, Sir Thomas Fairfax..."
  • do we know who commanded the dragoons?
    • Sadly not; Fairfax lists all the other commanders in a letter to parliament, but fails to mention this. Harrias talk 10:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there a breakdown of how many of the Parliamentary infantry were musketeers (assuming they weren't all musketeers)?
    • It isn't clear. Generally at the time, all infantry should have been, but weapons were often scarce, and Fairfax in particular often bolstered his forces with poorly armed 'club-men'. Harrias talk 10:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest moving the description of Wakefield from where it is to the point in the narrative when the Parliamentarians first arrive there and before the defenders man the hedges.
  • was Goring the only Royalist commander?
    • There is a whole list of so-called "commanders" who were taken prisoner, though the term seems to be used synonymously with "officer". There were certainly other Royalist commanders present, not least Goring's deputy Mackworth. In fact, looking through, one sources states "the royalist garrison in the town comprised General Goring, Sergeant Major-general Mackworth, Lord Goring, and other celebrated commanders" Harrias talk 10:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume Northgate is to the north of Wakefield, but where is/was Warrengate?
  • suggest "Despite his illness"→"Whatever his incapacity", as we are assuming one rather than the other by using illness. This also applies to the lead, where the illness version is also used.
    • Changed as suggested in this section, and tweaked the lead. Harrias talk 10:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "though both Goring's father, the Earl of Norwich,"
    • He did not become the Earl of Norwich until 1644; at this point he was "Lord Goring", which I worried might add to the confusion. Harrias talk 10:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • what did the dragoons do during the battle?
    • There is no record of this in the sources I have. Harrias talk 10:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "The commander of the infantry ignored Fairfax, and asked one of the two prisoners that Fairfax held for instructions."→"Fairfax was holding two prisoners, but the infantry commander did not recognise him and asked one of prisoners for instructions." if that is right?
    • It's really unclear if they realised who he was or not; I prefer your phrasing, but I'm not convinced enough to switch to it at the moment. Harrias talk 10:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about "Fairfax was holding two prisoners, but the infantry commander ignored him and asked one of prisoners for instructions." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Market Place→marketplace, unless it is the proper name of the location
    • The main source uses "Market Place", suggesting it is the proper name for the location, but Google Maps doesn't think it exists any more. I want to have a quick look around some others, if I'm not convinced, then I'll soften it as suggested. Harrias talk 10:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he fired at them with the cannon and his musketeers"→"his musketeers and the cannon opened fire"
  • suggest extending the piping of Sir Thomas Fairfax in the infobox
    • For some reason, I though our MOS suggested formatting it the way I had it, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Changed throughout. Harrias talk 10:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the sources seem reliable and of acceptable quality, although I am left wondering what more scholarly sources on the civil war might say about this event.
    • I agree, but I haven't been able to find anything from more scholarly sources relating to the capture, at least not as more than a passing mention. There is nothing obvious from either the The Yorkshire Archaeological & Historical Society or the Wakefield Historical Society, nor from searches on a couple of journal collections that I have access to. Harrias talk 10:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've initially responded to and changed some of the more obvious ones. I'm still pretty tired from my travels, so I'm going to look at some of the others later when I can concentrate better! Harrias talk 10:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: I've responded to each of your points, though there are a couple that I want to look into a little further, and a couple I've queried. Harrias talk 12:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of responses on pretty minor issues. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: And responded to those points. Harrias talk 09:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good, supporting. Nice job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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/Capture_of_Wakefield&oldid=920522635"