Talk:Weardale campaign/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: For the lion: a history of the Scottish wars of independence, By R. C. Paterson. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Widening scope of article

As currently envisaged, there isn't really enough material to make a decent article for Stanhope Park. A night raid on an enemy camp would not normally be significant enough for its own article, IMO. However, it is part of a significant campaign and that leads to a significant milestone in the Wars of Independence, the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton 1328. The Weardale Campaign 1327 is significant also for being Edward III's first campaign and for its description by an active participant, Jean Le Bel, which is much quoted in describing the realities of medieval campaign life. I would suggest, therefore, subsuming this article into a wider piece on the Weardale campaign. I would be willing to contribute to such a pieceMonstrelet (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. FlagSteward (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Finally got round to doing the basic rewrite as aboveMonstrelet (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Night Attack 3rd-4th August

According to Le Bel, it was only "IIc "- that is 200 men at arms that Douglas led into Edward III's camp on the night of 3rd-4th August- not 2000, as stated in the introductory paragraph. Any one mind if I change it?JF42 (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As the original statement is unsourced and actually contradicts the infobox, I don't see why not, especially if you provide a referenceMonstrelet (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't 'IIC' mean 98 rather than 200, which would be 'CC' in Roman numerals? Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.11.52 (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No. Medieval writers would sometimes use the convention of numeral followed by c instead of the classical Latin way of writing numbers. In Le Bel's case, he is writing in French so "c" is short for "cent".Monstrelet (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Weardale campaign/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

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)

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

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)