Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Powick Bridge/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) 12 December 2020 [1].

Battle of Powick Bridge[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Powick Bridge was pretty normal battle for the First English Civil War. Neither side seemed to know what the other was about, the stumbled across each other, fought largely ineffectively, and then one lot ran away. The engagement is probably most notable for enhancing Prince Rupert's reputation as a cavalry commander. The article has been through a Good article review and MILHIST A-class review. Although I am playing in the WikiCup, that concludes at the end of this month, and so this is not a WikiCup nomination. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is beautifully written, a pleasure to read, well organized, well prepared for FAC, and I can find only two nits to pick. 1) Awadewit used to go nuts about not having images looking off the page; is it possible to move the image of Sir John Byron, and the image of the dragoons, from the right to the left, so they will be facing the text? 2) Were it not for how much I hate collapsed navigational templates in articles at all, much less in the leads, I would be a Support, but that's just one of my little personal pet peeves :) When MILHIST starts placing navigational templates horizontally at the bottom of articles, I'll be tickled pink and more inclined towards supporting! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Source review and comments by Jr8825

  • Excellent article, I completely agree with SandyGeorgia about it being a very enjoyable and informative read. I found the contextual information particularly useful. I fixed two minor issues, a missing comma and a mistake with a single-page ref format (pp. instead of p.).

I spot-checked Gaunt (refs 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 19, 22, 27, 31)

  • fn 1 Gaunt writes "many contemporaries [believed] civil war became possible or likely; many historians agree with these views" – the article's wording "made civil war inevitable" seems quite a bit stronger than this to me.
  • fn 2 The article says commissions of array "had not been used for almost a century", while the source text says it "had largely fallen into abeyance after the mid sixteenth century, though it had been revived and employed by the king only a couple of years before, during the Bishops' Wars."
  • fn 27b doesn't support the sentence it's attached to and should be moved to the previous sentence, perhaps the structure was changed while writing or editing.

The only other issue I came across was that Scott, Turton and Gruber von Arni describe Worcester as "staunchly loyal to Charles" (p.14) which contradicts the article's description of the city as "predominantly sympathetic towards the Parliamentarians" (I haven't got access to Atkin). Once these issues are cleared up the article has my full support. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 20:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not unusual, irritatingly. The literature is often split on which side a place favoured. While I think Atkin has this right, I have removed it completely. Worcester became known as staunchly Royalist later in the war, but from everything I have seen, it leaned towards the Parliamentarians until this point. But as I say, safer to remove it given the ambiguity. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and the minor fixes Jr8825. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making those changes. The rest of the sources look solid and it's a pass for the source review. I'm happy to support the article for promotion. Jr8825 • Talk 22:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

If it merits it in size I shall be claiming points in the WikiCup for this review.

I gave this a thorough, FAC style, review at ACR. At Harrias's request. Let's see what is left for me to pick at.

Confrontation? Differences?
  • "arms and equipment collected for the earlier Bishops' Wars" Optional: add ', between England and Scotland'?
    • I'm not keen on making it seem like a national issue; the Scottish Royalists sided with Charles during this, and there was far from unanimous support for it in England. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sir John Byron's convoy" section. Perhaps clarify that Byron's cavalry regiment accompanied/escorted the convoy. Assuming that it did. If it did, what happened to it subsequently? Was it involved in the battle?
    • Clarified to "Byron's regiment left with a large convoy..". I'm pretty sure the regiment didn't take part in the battle, but the closest to confirmation I can find is in the ODNB: "The relief was provided on the 23rd by Prince Rupert, who routed the enemy advance guard at Powick Bridge and gave Sir John time to get his convoy clear." Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.
  • "either the internal or external threats". Er, what internal threats?
    • This made more sense before I removed the preceding sentence. Have further trimmed to "Aware that he would not be able to hold the city, Byron awaited reinforcements." Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It did, yes. :-)
Are you trying to say something like 'According to a report written by or for Nathaniel Fiennes, a Parliamentarian officer who was an eyewitness, Colonel Edwin Sandys – another of the Parliamentarian officers present ..."?
  • Ummm, yes, sort of. How is "According to a report written by or for one of the Parliamentarian officers present, Nathaniel Fiennes, Colonel Edwin Sandys – one of his fellow officers – argued that they should continue..", which I have now changed it to? Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "argued that they should continue towards Worcester" Would 'return to Worcester' not flow better?
    • I see what you're getting at, but given they would hit the city walls at a different point, approaching from a different direction, "return" doesn't seem right to me. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, I think you need a bit of prose to explain what they were doing.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Gog the Mild, some replies above. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And replies to replies. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: And some replies to your replies to replies. Thanks. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blast from the past. That all looks good to me.Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil[edit]

Support this impressive article, mostly direct edited as reading, feel free to revert, but have a few non-deal breaking quibbles:

Cheers, I reverted one change: [2] as it was Rupert who had the time to prepare his men (which they needed, as some were unarmoured), do you think this still needs to be made clearer? Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it makes perfect sense, but for thickos like me, can we give an estimation of how long it took to suit/tool up? Ceoil (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Haven't looked at this before, so have a few comments:

Lead
  • explain in the lead that Byron was concerned about the proximity of the Parliamentarians, and that was why he sought refuge at Worcester and called for assistance
  • the use of covered and covering in the lead isn't ideal. Perhaps describe Brown's stand as a rearguard, and I'm not sure what is meant by "covering the Royalist move"

Just getting started, placing a marker. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Body
No, I have self-administered an uppercut. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know a fair bit about military drill formations, and I don't see how putting a formation into files creates a greater frontage than one in ranks, or how files are shallower than ranks
  • Fiennes' article says he distinguished himself in this battle, cited to Encyclopædia Britannica. Could this be worked in somewhere?
    • I'll have a look at this, but that claim will almost certainly be based off Fiennes' own account of the battle. I could rephrase "Fiennes said that he managed to control his cavalry and hold fire until the charging Royalists were close enough.." to something like "Fiennes said that he alone managed to control his cavalry and hold fire until the charging Royalists were close enough..", but I'm not keen on going much further than that. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • same point about the rearguard as in the lead
  • link Puritans
Sources
  • Lost Battlefields of Britain by Martin Hackett has some additional detail, as does Britain in Revolution: 1625-1660 by Austin Woolrych.
    • Added some content from Woolrych. I'm not convinced by Hackett: he is a generalist rather than a Civil War specialist, and seems to have accepted at face value some tall tales that I suspect come from the romanticism surrounding Prince Rupert. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done, not a full source review, just looked for sources that have not been used that add useful detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Peacemaker67, I think I've responded to each point above, let me know. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Will do this later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Battle of Powick Bridge was a skirmish Do the sources say skirmish or battle? If it's skirmish why is the article called with "battle" instead of "skirmish"? If it's a battle then replace skirmish with battle.
  • fought on 23 September 1642 just south of Worcester Per MOS:OSNS maybe add a note here which calender this article uses and what are the difrences?
    • None of the sources I have for the battle have anything about this. Do you have any? MOS:OSNS says that further information is only needed "Where it's not obvious that a given date should be given in Julian alone or in Gregorian alone" However, it says that the Gregorian calendar was only adopted in "the British Empire from 14 September 1752", and so I don't see the need for clarification here. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:OSNS also says "If there is a need to mention Old or New Style dates in an article (as in the Glorious Revolution), a footnote should be provided on the first usage, stating whether the New Style refers to a start of year adjustment or to the Gregorian calendar (it can mean either)." so why not add a note with the explanation of the calendar England used?
  • That's true but I'm not confident that there's no note to it. Maybe that's just me, a continental European but for people who knows both calenders is a thing that could be misleading to them. But whatever I don't think we're getting there; I don't think it would, need or have to be changed since in all documents of the UK it is written in Old Style and this probably would be the case in other former colonies. Thus for almost all native English speakers, it wouldn't be a problem. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe also add the 10-day difference since probably not a lot of people would know about these? Also, I was just saying my point. I almost had the feeling I was manipulating or boycotting you with my POV which is not the case I just wanted to say my fair point and if you still disagree then I still would support it since I don't really care about this with the exception of the continental European thing of course. Anyway, cheers just wanted to say this disclaimer. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CPA-5: I'm not inclined to add anything else. For those that are aware of the Julian/Gregorian OS/NS calendar, the information provided is enough. For those that aren't aware, but are interested, the note has links. For most, the difference is small and irrelevant, and the more information provided here, the more likely they are to get confused. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean the year?
  • in April and July, by the Parliamentarian governor Who?
  • Sir John Byron was a strong supporter Add here a note which states "He would later become known as the John Byron, 1st Baron Byron."
  • reinforced early that day by Prince Rupert Introduction or note like above is maybe needed since his link goes to the "Prince Rupert of the Rhine" which makes it a MOS:EGG.
  • army of the Dutch Republic which was the preeminent force in the early 17th century Per Ngram pre-eminent is a little bit popular than this one.
  • Per MOS:COMMONALITY "When more than one variant spelling exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred, except where the less common spelling has a specific usage in a specialized"

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA-5. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: How is it looking now? Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Replied. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720[edit]

Here are suggestions on the prose. A lot of my comments are about the use of too many commas; sometimes it is a concern about the number of commas in a sentence and other times it is a comma before "and" or "but" (but not concerning Oxford commas and lists, I think). Although commas are great for pausing a sentence and increased clarity, I find too many make the prose choppy. I totally understand if you disagree but please make a note under each suggestion below if you don't like the restructuring. Please ping me when you have finished the comments so I can take a second look.

Hi Z1720, Harrias is temporarily unable to access Wikipedia and so has asked if I would address your comments, giving me a free hand to alter the article. We are currently collaborating on a Civil War article, and I gave this article a pre-GAN copy edit so I am familiar with it. It is even possible that the surplus commas are mine. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, I hope everything is alright with Harrias. I'll address your responses below. If I didn't respond to a comment, consider it "fixed". Z1720 (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully they will live.

Lede

  • The Royalists sent reinforcements under Prince Rupert, while the Parliamentarians sent a detachment, commanded by Colonel John Brown, to try to capture the convoy. This has lots of commas and feels choppy. Maybe try, "The Royalists sent reinforcements under Prince Rupert, while the Parliamentarians, commanded by Colonel John Brown, sent a detachment to try to capture the convoy."
I think that there is too much information attempting to squeeze into a single sentence. So I have split it: "The Royalists despatched a force commanded by Prince Rupert. Meanwhile, the Parliamentarians sent a detachment, under Colonel John Brown, to try to capture the convoy." How does that flow?
  • "Their route took them up narrow lanes, and straight into..." Remove comma?
Harrias is clearly a disciple of the Oxford comma. I am not. It has gone.

Build-up of the First English Civil War

  • "In anticipation of a likely conflict, both sides began preparing for war, attempting to recruit...." Change to "both sides prepared for war and attempted to recruit..." to remove extra verbs and the comma.
I have replaced the comma with "and". (Your suggestion didn't reduce the number of verbs.)
About the verbs: whoops. My bad. Thanks for the change.
  • During the first Siege of Hull, Charles was twice refused entrance into the city, in April and July 1642, by the Parliamentarian governor. There's lots of commas here that make this sentence choppy. Maybe try, "During the first Siege of Hull, Charles was twice refused entrance into the city by the Parliamentarian governor in April and July 1642."
A slight variant on your suggestion, with still but a single comma.
  • North of England, the East Midlands and Wales... then south-east of England, had plentiful arms, and controlled the navy WP:Oxford comma doesn't care if you use it or not, but there should be consistency.
Oxford commas removed.
  • armies did not begin to significantly manoeuvre Remove "begin to" as redundant.
Done.

Sir John Byron's convoy

  • with a large convoy of gold and silver plate I am confused by this, and I'm looking at the disambaug page for plate and am still confused. Is plate supposed to be plural? Is this a dinner plate or a construction plate? Is there a different definition that I'm missing?
Used in the sense, from Wikionary, of "[s]ilver or gold, in the form of a coin, or less often silver or gold utensils or dishes".
Already done in the mass extermination above.
  • On 16 September, he stopped at Worcester, a large town on the River Severn, which was surrounded by medieval city walls, though they were in poor condition. Sentence is choppy. I would say, "On 16 September, he stopped at Worcester, a large town on the River Severn, which was surrounded by medieval city walls in poor condition."
Done.

Prelude

  • a parallel path, through Coventry and towards Worcester... Remove this comma.
Gone.
  • According to a report written by or for one of the Parliamentarian officers present, Nathaniel Fiennes, Colonel Edwin Sandys – one of his fellow officers – argued that they should move closer... This sentence sounds very choppy because of the commas and hyphens. I don't know if you need "one of his fellow officers" as I assume from the sentence that Sandys is a Parliamentarian officer.
Good point. How is this, which I have changed the article to: "One of the Parliamentarian officers present, Nathaniel Fiennes, wrote or had written a report; in it he stated that one of his fellow officers, Colonel Edwin Sandys, argued that they should move closer to Worcester to prevent the convoy from escaping."?
I think this sentence is still confusing, as wrote or had written a report sounds like you are saying the same thing in two different verb tenses. Maybe, "One of the Parliamentarian officers present, Nathaniel Fiennes, either wrote a report or had one written for him about the convoy. In this report, it was stated that fellow officer Colonel Edwin Sandys argued they should move closer to Worcester to prevent the convoy from escaping."
I have gone with "One of the Parliamentarian officers present, Nathaniel Fiennes, either wrote a report or had it written for him. In this, it was stated that fellow officer Colonel Edwin Sandys argued they should move closer to Worcester to prevent the convoy from escaping." Does that work?
It works!
  • Unknown to the Parliamentarians... This sentence has lots of commas (but is not a list) so I think it should be broken up into two sentences.
Done.

Battle

  • ...Sandys's men, and forced... Remove the comma.
Already done.

Aftermath

  • which was carried away in the flight. This part is ambiguous. Do you mean that the Lifeguard joined in the retreat?
Yes. I am not seeing the ambiguity. What is the other possible meaning.
I think my confusion is because I've never heard the expression "carried away in the flight." I am OK with the expression staying in the sentence but I would like it worded to remove the excessive commas.
2 of 3 commas removed. I have also linked "carried away" to rout; it is a duplink but sems permissible in this case.
  • established Rupert's reputation as a cavalry commander... I think you should say "established Rupert's negative reputation" to make it clear to the reader sooner that his reputation was negatively effected.
It wasn't. It did what the article says, established his reputation as a (leading/good/inspired/aggressive/whatever) cavalry commander.
When I read "rendered the name of Prince Rupert very terrible" I thought it was saying the Rupert was a terrible commander. Maybe put "established Rupert's reputation as an effective cavalry commander"?
Ah. It is a quote, so I can't tweak it. It means, in the speech of the day, that he struck terror into his opponents, I have changed the earlier part of the sentence to "The battle established Rupert's reputation as an effective cavalry commander".
  • The Parliamentarians took a less direct route to the capital, but still arrived there first, and after further battles at Brentford and Turnham Green, Charles withdrew to Oxford to establish winter quarters. I would split this into two sentences, "The Parliamentarians took a less direct route to the capital but still arrived there first. After further battles at Brentford and Turnham Green, Charles withdrew to Oxford to establish winter quarters."
Good point. Done.
  • the Third English Civil War, the Battle of Worcester was a.... Add a comma after "Worcester"
Done.

That's it for the first round! Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised this is still outstanding; had completely forgot about it, and only have limited access at the moment. Will try and get it done ASAP. Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harrias, there's no rush for me and we are all volunteers. Please ping me when finished so I can add supplimental thoughts. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Z1720, some excellent stuff there. See my introductory note above. All of your comments have been addressed above and I await with interest your further thoughts. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My responses are posted above. Sorry for the delay. I will do another look-through of the article in the coming days. Z1720 (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, thank you for that. I have, I think, clarified all of the areas which you were not content with. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of my prose concerns have been addressed.

Mini-Source Review

Why do " Edgehill: The Battle Reinterpreted" and " Decisive Battles of the English Civil War" have links to Google books, but the other sources do not?

I could only read the Woolrych book online, but the quote and info are in there.

That's it from me. Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias may well have a perfectly good explanation for that, but as I don't know what it might be I have standardised things by removing them. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All my comments have been addressed. I support this promotion. Z1720 (talk) 19:20, 12 December 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.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Powick_Bridge/archive1&oldid=1141923878"