Talk:Second War of Scottish Independence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Featured articleSecond War of Scottish Independence is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 8, 2024.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 31, 2022Good article nomineeListed
May 12, 2022Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Merge Request

A merge request was put on this shortly after I started work. There is already a seperate entry on the First War of Scottish Independence, and I believe the much neglected Second War needs similar treatment. It receives partial and cursory treatment in the Wars of Scottish Independence page. I could expand this but that would risk making the whole thing excessive in length. Rcpaterson 22:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is valid and there is no need to merge it. It needs to be exanded, which it seems Rcpaterson intends to do. Tyrenius 22:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the merge tag has been removed via a revert by Netsnipe who put it there in the first place, do I take it that there is a consensus not to merge? At least an informative edit summary would have been helpful. Tyrenius 04:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. What's the official policy on merge tags? Are they to always remain on a work-in-progress article or do I accept the author's promises on good-faith? --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  08:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could merge an article unilaterally if you wanted. However, if other editors are involved it is best to discuss (hence the tag). Through discussion the next step is reached (merge or not merge so remove tag). At the moment it is the case that involved editors have seen fit that this is best as a separate article. If nothing happens to it after a while and all the info is in the main article, you may think it best to merge it after all. No point keeping the merge tag on at the moment, unless you are suggesting it should be merged at the moment. Tyrenius 00:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see a stub has now been put on this; but what I have written already is not a 'stub'-at least as I understand the term-but an intro. I would have finished the whole article within a day or two, but I have since been diverted on to other projects. I will, however, continue, if that is the consensus.Rcpaterson 23:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki doesn't have isolated intros. It only has stubs! I think from above conversation you should go ahead and complete the article. Tyrenius 00:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a massive article and a massive section! Well there is plenty of content but it should probably be combined here, into this article, instead of spread out like it is. However this article is already about 40kb :) --Fxer 17:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The merge tag was put on when this article was just a paragraph. I propose removing the tag, now that this topic has turned into a full article in its own right. Tyrenius 23:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do note that this merge tag is about adding information from the Wars of Scottish Independence page into this article? --Fxer 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't. I thought it was the original merge tag reinstated. Tyrenius 12:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure that there is anything to be merged: this article contains much more than the rather limited sub-section in the Wars of Scottish Independence page. I have to say that I have major issues with the way the subject has been approached, which is precisely why I created this page in the first place. I'm sorry to say there is some deep intellectual confusion over this whole topic. We have an article on the First War of Scottish Independence, which seemingly ended for some bizarre and unexplained reason in 1306, and then another page which correctly takes the contest down to 1328, but loses all detail and focus half way through. The one simply does not tie in with the other. My preference would be to scrap both of the latter and create a new page along the lines of this present article: but that would probably mean standing on about a million toes! Rcpaterson 04:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for bold edits, but I don't know about just scrapping the articles wholesale. I would think these articles should be organized like the rest of wikipedia, we have a First War article, a Second War article and then use the Wars of Scottish Independence article as an overview, with general info about the struggles, as well as paragraph long excerpts and links to the First and Second war articles. I'd agree with Rcpaterson on the points that the articles on the topic definately need some reorganizing and rewriting. --Fxer 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A good plan. Tyrenius 18:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain why this is called a war of independence? From the article it sounds more like a Scottish dynastic struggle with some English intereference than a struggle for independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.32.121 (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Not so; Edward III had a long-standing ambition to negate the 'shameful peace' of 1328 and to succeed where his father and grandfather failed. His intention was to make Edward Balliol king of a trancated Scotland and subject to his own authority with the stipulation that if Balliol died without issue the Scottish crown would fall to the Englsih crown as a feudal escheat. To some extent Balliol's role in the whole process was to provide a fig-leaf of legality to the adventures of Beaumont, Wake, Talbot etc.. Edward Balliol was of course the l;egitimate heir to the crown in terms of simple primogeniture, but his 'right' had been rejected by the Community of the Realm in 1320 in favour of Robert I. This is a matter of some significance; in England the Crown in Parliament is sovereign, but in Scotland sovereignty rests with the people - a principle given in court as recently as 1954. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.32.90 (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good question. According to a related Wikipedia page this name was only adopted some time after the American War of Independence. In other words for almost 500 years these conflicts were called something else. Arguably these wars are better described as Norman-French civil wars not wars of national independence in the modern sense. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.111.241 (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why the strange titles?

Can someone please explain why the sections of the article have vague and slightly ridiculous titles such as "Autumn King" and "Awakened Dreams"? I'm sure someone has gone to a lot of effort to think them up, and they must have some relevance to the article, but they don't half make it difficult to tell which section is about which phase of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.13.170 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed they seem out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.17.34 (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've replaced the title headings to read a little better, although not by much. To be honest, I'd argue that this article needs a total rewrite. As it stands, we've got no in-text citations and the article as a whole reads very much as if it came from the pen of King David himself. Dougano (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this article needs a rename too. Wikipedia is the only place I've seen this period referred to as part of the Wars of Scottish Independence, which previously included that from 1297-1304 and 1306-1328. At the very, very least, the name should be changed to Third War of Scottish Independence.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag?

Does anyone see the reason, why the tag was placed? In the history, You may note that the anonymous IP placed it: [1], but with no description, with no discussion, without any relevant action to clarify his/her disapproval. So hereby here I call for its disposal. If this section will remain unanswered for more then let say a month, I see it fit for anyone to remove the tag. Reo ON | +++ 16:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the circumstances, I removed it. It's over a year old and the lack of a discussion since then seems to indicate that the time for all due haste has passed. A POV tagger should at least give some indication of the issues. If anyone has anything to say on the topic, please do so here. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thats good, right. But regardless the circumstances I am glad, that there was at least us two who reached agreement before the removal. I completely agree regarding the indication of POV issue, however I see it common , that it is often missing, such empty POVs are then weeding lot of articles. In such cases I try to set some quasi-discussion for one month and than, if empty (and that is always) I remove the tag. Maybe overcaring? Have a good time Reo ON | +++ 05:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem

This article uses text from For the Lion: a History of the Scottish Wars of Independence to which Wikipedia is not legally entitled, lacking proper licensing by the publisher. The article was created with this content with more text added incrementally to this point. Examples of some of the problematic text include: [2],[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Given the number of edits to this article since, I had hoped to be able to clean it as I went, but at this point it is apparent to me that most of this content remains unchanged and there is considerably more ground still to cover, some of which I already know is copied: [18]. I'm very sorry to say that, at this point, it seems that to avoid creating an unauthorized derivative work, this article will need to be completely rewritten. It is being blanked to give interested and knowledgeable contributors an opportunity to help out in the hopes that one of you will. It will be revisited after about a week to see what further steps may be necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Interesting poing about the copyright. Good job with the re-write. Can I respectfully ask why change the subheadings that were there before? They broke the conflict into distinct phases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.72 (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result

  1. It was a Scottish victory. Edward III invaded and ultimately failed to subjugate the country, thus failing in his war aim. The Scots maintained their indepndance, thus achieving theirs.
  2. The English obtained an agreement to pay 100,000 merks. I think no one was surprised that only 76,000 was ever paid, and that took until 1377, when the total was supposedly due by 1367.
  3. The instructions for the Template:Infobox military conflict states "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much."
  4. What sources support the result being "In effect drawn "?

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While not used in this article, I think this source puts it quite well:

"When war in Scotland recommenced in 1332, it appeared rather quickly that the Bruce establishment of the kingdom was in danger of collapse. The twin threats of a return to Balliol kingship, and English conquest of southern Scotland, must have appeared likely outcomes in the aftermath of the crushing Bruce battlefield defeats at Dupplin Moor and Halidon Hill. And yet the war continued. Edward Balliol, for all that he retained support in Scotland, and could count on the military assistance of English field armies, was unable to impose his will sufficiently on the Scottish people. Edward III, despite his military effort and personal involvement in the war with Scotland, could not ensure the stability of the Balliol regime, or conquer Scotland outright. Indeed he was unable even to conquer southern Scotland and retain it against Bruce counter-attacks."[1]

- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ISBN 978-1-78327-144-3
    .
Thank you Pickersgill-Cunliffe, that is helpful. I used that source when improving Battle of Dupplin Moor. (I took that to FA.) I am currently working through this article section by section and I must remember to reconsult MacInnes before I finish. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, looking at the article and what it reports the sources have to say: The episode demonstrated to both Scotland and England the fruitlessness of their struggles. It is not necessarily "In effect drawn " but it does appear to be quite inconclusive. Edward did not beat David but nor did David beat Edward. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting take on England invading and failing in (almost) all of its war aims - instead of conquering Scotland, it gained Berwick - and Scotland succeeding - it retained its national independence and territorial integrity. Any sourcing to support "inconclusive". Genuine question, I am in the process of substantially rewriting the article - having taken five of its component articles to FA - and have not got down to the summary/aftermath parts yet. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, I would first clarify: "It is not necessarily "In effect drawn"" - since a "draw" would imply an equal standing but the treaty terms clearly favoured the English. While the English did not achieve their strategic aim, neither were they beaten by the Scotts. In simple terms: England did not beat Scotland ≠ Scotland beat England. The episode demonstrated to both Scotland and England the fruitlessness of their struggles. [sourced in article] does not explicitly state "inconclusive" but it is saying that neither of them were going to win/did win. If there aren't sources saying there was a result of "victory X" (or very similar - and I don't see any that are) then we use inconclusive - unless the sources are saying it is much more complicated. Then, we would use "See section". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Second War of Scottish Independence/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 14:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick this one up. Finally a use for some of those Scottish history books I've got! Ealdgyth (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh! Gog the Mild (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know that I shall be away Monday and Tuesday - in a tent up some hills. I am assuming that Wikipedia will still be here when I return. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The earliest I'll have for this is tomorrow but it's not unlikely that it'll be Tuesday before I get to it. And it may come in parts. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (
    lists
    )    :
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (
    reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism
    ):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • General:
    • Inflation figures - I'm very very very leery of using the inflation template for medieval land values. I'll note that the template directions for the inflation template say that for "For inflating capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich" (emphasis mine) the templates for the GDP of the UK should be used, but those are only reliable for after 1700. (I'm also leery of using it for the prices of goods too, but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.) You're also using {{CURRENTYEAR}} which ... the template instructions specifically say not to do (and yes, I just realized *I* need to go back and fix some horse articles... joy) And you don't convert other monetary figures later - the 40,000 pounds suggested as David's ransom or the 100,000 marks eventually agreed to
Removed.
    • Coats of arms - Per [Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons: Difference between revisions this discussion] - coats of arms shouldn't be used in infoboxes as stand-ins for flags - I've removed them before but somehow they keep returning ... they aren't useful as not one in a hundred people will figure out that File:Arms of Stewart.svg at 15pixels is supposed to represent the "Arms of Stewart" (and WHICH Stewart WHEN and what's the SOURCE for this image anyway?)
I know that, but there are several editors who seem to believe they are helpful, or at least like inserting them, and are probably oblivious to MoS discussions. I have given up arguing with them other than with "my" FAs, where I can just
WP:FAOWN
.
    • There's a lot of very ... jarring ... transitions between actions/events. A lot of times this is done as a sentence about something and then the next sentence is about a totally different geographical area or event. Examples such as "Edward was forced into signing the treaty by his regents and was never reconciled to it.[7] Some Scottish nobles, refusing to swear fealty to Bruce..." where we suddenly go from English affairs to Scottish affairs with no connection/introduction of the change. Or "Edward returned to England again in December 1336 to plan for a war with France in the spring. Papal attempts to mediate were brushed aside." These sorts of abrupt changes give the prose a very choppy feel and can be a bit disorienting and make it difficult to follow the events.
To an extent that's inevitable in an article trying to summarise 25 eventful years. I'll have a look at smoothing some rough edges, but not as part of GAN, unless you are saying it doesn't meet 1a?
For me, GA prose standards are just "clear and understandable" - not the FA standard. But, like I said, I can smell the FAC incoming on this one... (grins).... Ealdgyth (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are talking about. None. [Checks.] Nope. None at all. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs:
    • Not required for GA, but I can smell the FAC driftig off this so I'll go ahead and get started on that work - you're using three different formats for your ODNB references - pick one and stick to it. My personal preference is NOT to use {{ODNB}} because then you get into issues that it doesn't match the format well to your OTHER references. I tend to use cite encyclopedia, but other options are possible.
I used to use cite encyclopedia, but got a telling off at Battle of Sluys. I'll try it again and see what happens.
    • I see someone has "helpfully" archived urls in the refs, but this leads to weirdnesses like an archive of an ODNB entry or an archive of a book url. (Hall, Bert ref)
Removed
    • Oh, ouch. Oman? I know the sfn says "1998" but while he was pioneering, can't we do better than a source originally published in 1924?
Oh come on. He's fine for what I use him for. The cite was probably cut and pasted from Battle of Neville's Cross, which was some idiot's first FAC.
    • States for publication locations ... consistent use or not use for the more out of the way publishing locations - You have "Rochester, NY" but "New Haven"... Likewise for the English counties - "Ware, Herefordshire" but "Oxford" (I'd not use the county, and go "Ware, UK" but that's me)
Sorted. Expanded where a reader may reasonably be confused by the bare location. (I am not going to put "Oxford, Oxfordshire" or "Cambridge, Cambridgeshire" any more than I am going to write "New York, New York" or "London, Greater London". As for using "New York, USA" for consistency ...)
    • Stock ... 1888???? Really?
Some reviewers have no sense of humour. (If you leave an easy "error" for normal reviewers, they pounce on it and stop, satisfied.) Gone.
    • And I really wish someone academic would publish something on Queen Isabella so we can stop having to use Weir .. heh. Not a complaint you can fix (even at FAC) ... just a general whine.
    • General note for FAC - is there not any academic biography of Wallace to replace MacKay's general interest biography?
Who cares? I only use him because he cites the Lannercost on Berwick.
  • Images:
    • File:King Robert I of Scotland.jpg - I know it's on Commons, but it's a 3D work and I'm going to have to say I doubt it's been properly released. The sculptor will have the copyright to the sculpture and ... the release on the commons page is from the photographer, I'm guessing.
Gone. A shame. Replaced.
    • File:Edward III (18th century).jpg - 18th century work - can we use something more contemporary or at least label the image as utterly fanciful and made up by the artist?
Replaced.
    • Can we label the seige of berwick image as from what MS it comes from and an approximate date?
Date added.
    • Same for the Philip VI receiving David II image?
Date added.
    • And for the David II acknowledges image?
Date added.
  • Lead:
    • That first sentence is a whopper - can we get it a bit simpler so that we're not losing readers in the first sentence?
Split.
    • "unhappy about an English expansion" Britishism? I'd say "unhappy about English expansion" as a Yank...
Yes, well. You ex-colonials seem to have never grasped correct English. ;-)
    • "the Scots were unable to agree a position" are we missing a word here? I'd think it was "the Scots were unable to agree on a position"?
No, I'm not. I have no objections to adding "on" if you wish. It would seem that my usage is common but in the minority.
    • "but forced to focus on the French the English slowly lost ground" I think this is a bit TOO much brevity ... perhaps "but as he was forced to focus on the French theatre the English slowly lost ground in Scotland"?
Done.
    • "The following year the Treaty of Berwick was signed, ending the war with the English dropping" clunky - suggest "The following year war ended when the Treaty of Berwick was signed, with the English dropped"
Rephrased.
  • Background:
    • Comma after "disaster at Stanhope Park in 1327"?
No, why? Returning to this, is it because you are American and use the, to my mind strange, convention of inserting a comma after any initial mention of time. It is not one I use. So proponents of it would write, and, I assume, say "Today, I ate breakfast"; I would write and say "Today I ate breakfast". Either is acceptable. (Much as I itch to remove examples of the former when copy editing.)
    • Shouldn't it be "They agreed TO the Treaty of Northampton with"?
Nope.
    • I think we can just go "ending the war after 32 years"?
Done.
  • English invasion 1332:
    • I really dislike the very easter-egg link "feel of landing in Fife, against fierce Scottish opposition, Balliol's"... either mention the battle by name or drop the link, I think.
Link gone. And back and named in text.
    • "Five days after landing in Fife, against fierce Scottish opposition, Balliol's predominately English force of some 2,000 men met the Scottish army of 15,000–40,000 men, under the new guardian Donald, Earl of Mar, 2 miles (3 km) south of the Scottish capital, Perth." you're trying to do too much in this sentence - get Balliol landed, give his forces, the forces of the opposition, the fact that the leader of the opposition was new, and the location where they met. And in the process, you've left off the day that Balliol landed so we're sorta floating in mid-air on the chronology - we don't know what the "five days after" date IS. Suggest trying to rework this into shorter sentences that don't try to cram too much into them.
Rewritten.
    • I'm gathering that the battle near the River Earn is the Battle of Dupplin Moor? It might be nice if it was named in the body of the article...
OK, done.
  • English invasion 1333
    • Link "Berwick"
It is linked at first mention. Do you mean again, or did you miss that?
    • "did not have universal appeal" - in England or where? Maybe instead "Although the idea of returning to war against Scotland did not have universal appeal among the English, Edward III gave Balliol his backing"?
Nice. Done. Thanks.
    • "According to a contemporary chronicle," again... not a fan of the easter-egg link - just name the chronicle. "According to the contemporary Lanercost Chronicle", but I'm not sure we need the quote about the town.
Removed the link.
    • not sure we need the "the" in "of the historian"
We absolutely do, see false title.
    • When did the seige of Berwick ... start?
Whoops! Added a sentence.
    • "Douglas ordered an attack." ... I'd have expected the blue link to take me to something about "ordering an attack" not to the main article on the battle...
First two words moved outside the link.
    • "The Lanercost Chronicle reports" but no link because we played hide the easter egg earlier... so folks may be confused not understanding why they haven't got a link here ...
Link added.
  • French involvement:
    • "attacking either country by the threat that the other would in turn invade English territory" ... clunky ... perhaps "attacking either country by the threat that the other would then invade English territory"?
Sorry Ealdgyth, I don't see any reduction in clunkyness. I don't find either clunky, but that is a little by the by; I don't see any gain in your version, certainly none worth giving up the precision of the original.
    • "could not agree a position for the peace negotiations" I think "could not agree on a position for the peace negotiations" or "could not agree to a position for the peace negotiations"?
Definitely not "to", but "on" seems harmless to the meaning, if rather pointless, so added.
  • English invasion of Scotland part three (or "English invasion of Scotland 1335" if you want to be technical...)
    • "timing his invasion to the expiration of the French-engineered temporary truce" I suggest removing "French-engineered temporary" as we are about to discover it was temporary and we should remember it was French-engineered from the previous section...
Done.
    • "There he joined up with the balance, under Balliol, who had marched from Berwick, at the end of the month" okay ... "at the end of the month" - is that phrase describing the time the forces joined up or the time that the forces under Balliol had marched from Berwick?
Clarified.
    • "Scots followed a scorched earth policy of offering no resistance and both English armies devastated everything in their paths" if the Scots followed a scorched earth policy... how was there anything for the English to devastate after the Scots devastated it first?
There is always enough left to make an even bigger mess, given time and sufficiently evil ingenuity. And technically, what the Scots did was scorched earth - a military activity aiming to destroy anything that might be useful to the opposing military; what the English did was devastation - a military activity aiming to destroy anything that might be useful to the opposing populous. Admittedly, at the sharo end they would doubtless be tricky to distinguish!
    • "which his regent was" who was his regent/guardian now, anyway? And how many did the poor guy go through in the end???
Good point. I had this introduced at the end of the section. Rejigged.
Well, not counting the one who dropped dead two weeks before Balliol landed, but including both the one who only lasted three weeks and Robert Stewart - who was guardian and had some of the powers of a regent while David was a captive - and counting Andrew Murray's two periods - broken by a period of English captivity - as one; then four.
  • France joins the fight (Because THAT is going to go well for them...)
Ah, they didn't know. They were three times larger, stronger and richer than the English and the Scots were going to do all of the fighting. Umm, reminds me of something more recent.
    • "rejected the English proposals" what were the proposals?
This is summary style. It wouldn't be appropriate, and would overwhelm the article, to include the details of all of the truces and treaties which did happen, much less those which didn't.
    • "French political and legal pressures increased" pressures ON the French or pressures FROM the French on the English?
Clarified.
    • "Papal attempts to mediate were brushed aside" mediate between whom?
"Edward returned to England again in December 1336 to plan for a war with France in the spring. Papal attempts to mediate were brushed aside." It seems clear to me. Would it help if I replaced the first full stop with a semi colon?
  • Scottish resurgence 1338
    • "David II reached the age of 18 and returned to Scotland" where had he been?
Now there's a good point. Whoops. Added. (At the start of Scottish resurgence, 1334)
    • "David retaliated by having his ally Wiliam Bullock" ally of whom? David?
    • "imprisoned where he died, possibly also of starvation" I think "imprisoned until he died, possibly also of starvation" would be better...
    • "Stewart intervened and Douglas was pardoned" who's Stewart? (I double checked and he's not been mentioned prior to this...)
Sorry, that lot added by a "helpful" drive by. Expunged.
  • Scottish invasion 1346 (whereby the Scots try to turn the tables...)
    • Why was it "Lord Ralph Neville" but just "Henry Percy"... both were barons, right?
Not sure why I did that. Standardised.
  • Captivity of David:
    • "which removed him from the succession" ... first mention that Stewart might have had a chance at the succesion and that this might have been yet another issue between him and his king?
Covered in Note 5 in Scottish invasion of England, 1346. I agree that burying it in a note is not ideal, but it seemed the least bad option. I am open to suggestions, including repeating in the text at the "which removed him from the succession" stage?
  • English invasion of Scotland 1356... fourth times the charm, right?
Or, if at first you don't succeed, just keep banging your head against the wall. Again, the behaviour of the English reminds me of a more recent invasion.
    • "of the concurrent Hundred Years' War" ... we don't need this, we've had a good background of the fact taht it was going on too
    • "agreeing the truce" ... "agreeing TO the truce" ...
No. That means something subtly different. How I have it is fine.
    • I know you linked "escaladed" but all I can see here is a Cadillac SUV doing something in the middle of Scotland/England in the Middle Ages. Suggest staying away from jargon ...
One person's jargon is another's correct terminology. But as this is an overview, fudged.
    • "important English-held border town of Berwick-on-Tweed and laid siege" ... isn't this the Berwick from 1333?
Lucky guess: yes.
  • Treaty of Berwick:
    • "From an army of 14,000–16,000, approximately 6,000 were killed or captured; the King of France was one of those taken prisoner." we probably don't need the details on the numbers killed or captured - it's enough for this article to say that the defeat was shattering and that the king was captured.
I disagree. Why do you feel that even a broad overview of the battle which ended the war is not needed?
"In September 1356 the French suffered a shattering defeat at the Battle of Poitiers.[108] Over a third of the French army was killed or captured; the King of France was one of those taken prisoner." - it's not the overview that I'm objecting to - it's the numbers .. since Poitiers isn't the subject of THIS article or even part of it, we don't need the numbers. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the Scots agreed a ransom of 100,000" "the Scots agreed TO a ransom of 100,000"
You do like unnecessary to's. It is grammatically fine as it is.
Well, Yanks tend to think it makes things a bit clearer. It's really really jarring to a non-dialect speaker. It may be common in some parts of England, but it's not elsewhere. And, yes, I read a LOT of academic writing from the UK so I know it's not common in UK-English either. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is helpful per
MOS:COMMONALITY because the version with "to" is much more easily understood by many English speakers... (t · c) buidhe 21:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Can I point out that I am not objecting to "the Scots agreed to a ransom of 100,000" because I dislike using that formulation or because I think it will be not be so readily understood, but because it means something different to (sic) ""the Scots agreed a ransom of 100,000"; and the meaning in the sources, and the one I wish to convey, is that represented by the latter, not the suggested alternative. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this. The second one seems ungrammatical to this American, but the only meaning I would derive from it is identical to the first one. (t · c) buidhe 02:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I'm not seeing any difference in meaning - the second just looks like someone left out a word. Can you explain how the two sentences differ? Ealdgyth (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly - ie quick and dirty - "agreed to": if a proposition is put to me and I can either agree to it or no agree to it I have a binary choice. "Agree": if I agree something (no "to") then I have had a say in negotiating (or, one could say. "in agreeing") what it is I am agreeing. A check: in USEng, would you say that negotiations ended with the parties failing to agree to terms or failing to agree terms? If the latter, then I think you see my point. If you the former is acceptable to you, it isn't in UKEng.
I would say "negotiations ended with the parties failing to agree to terms" or "failing to agree on terms". I'd think whoever wrote "failing to agree terms" had no concept of grammar. Can we go with "agree ON terms/ransom/etc" as a compromise? Ealdgyth (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of these aren't necessarily required for GA, but there are some spots where the writing is not very clear and needs some figuring out.
Yeah. You may have spotted bits of half a dozen FACs jammed together. And by now I know it all so well that it is difficult for me to spot what hasn't been said - if you know what I mean. Thanks for wading through it.
  • I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Phew! Sorry that took me so long
obiter dicta. Identifiable by my insets. Let me know if you would like me to run through also adding ticks or whatever. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I've been checking on most of this as they were fixed, and I think we're down to one bit that's not required but is a bit sticky (the numbers for Poitiers) and the "agreed to" issue which, I"m afraid, is sticky. I'm still not seeing any distinction and it's bad writing in US English. If we can find a compromise that makes it acceptable to you while still reading better to the Yanks, we'll be in a better place for our readers - who are not all Brit English, remember. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming that the Poitiers numbers aren't a GAN fail issue - correct me if I am mistaken. If not then they may well drop out in the big copy edit I intend to do post GAN. And if they don't we can fight it out at any possible FAC. I am not going to write "agreed to" as that would not be accurate nor faithful to the sources. I note that a usage note in Wiktionary says "US and Canadian English do not use the transitive form. Thus "they agreed on a price" or "they agreed to the conditions" are used in North America but not "they agreed a price" or "they agreed the conditions"." UK English does use the trnsitive form and not using it changes the meaning. I have synonymed out 8 of the 11 cases of "agreed". I think that you are just going to have accept the other 3 as consistent examples of a correct usage of the Engvar the article is written in. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did say "one bit that's not required but is a bit sticky (the numbers for Poitiers)" ... I think you're doing a disservice to your readers who aren't Brits by insisting on keeping in a jarring usage that's going to read badly to non-Brits, but I'm not going to hold up the article for that - it's understandable to me even if it sounds/reads badly/jarring. And I think you're doing me a disservice by assuming that I'll go to any FAC and be nasty there about it. As a general rule, I don't fight over prose issues - it's not worth the headache. I'm not out to do battlegroundy things with GANs or with FACs... my goal is to make the best article possible for our readers. Passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth: My humble apologies if anything I wrote could be taken as your being or ever having been battle-groundy. To my knowledge you never have been and I did not mean to suggest or imply that you might be. It's a MilHist article and it may be that what I meant as banter in keeping with the tone of the article was open to misinterpretation. I shall try to watch that in future. My multiple comments above expressing appreciation for your thorough and thoughtful review and follow ups were all sincere and I continue to be appreciative. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_War_of_Scottish_Independence&oldid=1205030682"