Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Preston (1648)/archive1

:Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

In January 2023 I took the second of the twin battles which ended the Second English Civil War, battle of Winwick, to FAC; a classic example of Gog doing things the wrong way round. I have finally got round to working on the article about first of these battles and offer it to you here. Royalists supporting Charles I lost the First English Civil War in 1646. In spring 1648 an uncoordinated series of risings and mutinies broke out in England and Wales. The faction in control of the Scottish government opportunistically raised an army and sent it south in support of Charles. A day late and a dollar short this army crossed into England on 8 July and moved sluggishly south. Meanwhile Oliver Cromwell had concentrated what forces he could and although outnumbered more than two to one and having no clear idea of the Scottish dispositions threw his army at the Scottish flank. Historians have described this as "an enormous gamble" and "hardly credible". For what happened next, read on ...

This has recently gone through GAN where {{u|Hog Farm}}, bless them, effectively PRed it. I hope that is now in a fit state for your perusal. I suspect you will let me know if it is not. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• Wales could be delinked in the lead as per MOS:OL.

::Done.

Background

• {{green|Charles was not successful...}} Could "unsuccessful" be used here?

::Done.

War

• {{green|This had been split into garrisons across the country; its commander, Sir Thomas Fairfax, based in London, put down the revolt in Kent on 1 June, then moved into Essex and began an eleven-week siege of Colchester.}}

:Could "Kent" and "Essex" be linked here?

::Done.

Initial suggestions above. Velworth (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Aftermath

• {{green|After Winwick Cromwell turned north.}} I suppose there is a typo in this sentence.

::Not that I can see. What issue do you have with it?

:Velworth (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::Hi Velworth and thanks for that. Your comments all addressed above and I am looking forward to the next instalment. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::@Gog the Mild Apologies for the delay. It is a fine article indeed. Looking forward to its promotion. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Battle_of_Preston_1648.svg would benefit from a legend

::I shall see what I can do.

• File:Marmaduke_Langdale2.png is a rather poor quality image - is this copied from a painting?

::It doesn't seem too bad to me, but I could replace it with this [https://www.civilwarpetitions.ac.uk/historical-people/sir-marmaduke-langdale-of-holme-upon-spalding-moor-east-riding-of-yorkshire/] from the National Portrait Museum?

• File:Battle_of_Preston_(Cattermole).jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::Published 8 May 1886 by Luke S. Walmsley, a Lancashire art collector. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi {{u|Gog the Mild}}, my comments:

• A very minor and cosmetic first comment, but consider linking to Edinburgh in the War section?

::I have linked it at first mention in Background.

• In the War section, consider slightly moving down the image of Oliver Cromwell? Even without the campaign boxes being expanded, it still forms a SANDWICH with the image of Charles I.

::If I move it down I get a sandwich with the map. I think the issue is with the size of the infobox image. So I have shrunk it, does that resolve things?

• Do we prefer "risings" or "uprisings"? I think the term which is more grammatically accurate is the latter. Wdyt?

::Nah. They are synonyms. One can swap them around and the grammar and meaning is unchanged. I was trying for a bit of variety of expression, but I am not too bothered. Do I understand that your preference would be to replace every "risings" with "uprisings"?

• Link to Carlisle on first mention in the War section, as done in the lead?

::Whoops. Done.

• Link to the Siege of Pembroke and Yorkshire in the War section?

::Both done.

• Can we change the font or background color of the map in the invasion section? I can only read Preston and Winwick easily on the map, for the others I have to squint, since the background and font colors are both light.

::I don't think I can change the font colour - which is a shame. The only way I know to change the background would be to remove the relief, which I don't want to do as it contains important information. I could - easily - make all of the labels a little bigger - say a touch larger than Preston and Winwick? Or put them all on white backgrounds, as I have done as a test with Gloucester. What do you think?

• "How many mustered": "How many were mustered" would be better, no?

::I am not sure that is grammatical, it sounds clumsy to me. Wiktionary gives a usage example of "The whole male population, men and boys, mustered on the top of the hill." so I am happy that there is nothing wrong with how I am using it.

• Link to Lancashire Militia in the Numbers sub-section?

::Done.

• "separate, nominally Scottish, force": Remove the comma after "Scottish"? It makes the reading flow rather awkward.

::Done.

• Why have we not added Philip Musgrave and William Bailie to the infobox in the Commanders section?

::Because they were subordinate commanders who played little part in this battle and had no effect on the outcome.

• "and at that more than half": Remove "at that"? Does not seem necessary.

::Removed.

• Link to Wigan, Warrington and Manchester on first mention in the body?

::Done.

• Would we consider adding the New Model Army and Lancashire Militia to the infobox?

::No. It clutters the infobox while providing little of use to a reader.

• "the fight had gone out of them": Sounds poetic, but too filmy. Could we consider something more boring and encyclopedic like "they were no longer willing to fight"?

::It sounds fine to me. I am happy to change it, but I don't like your suggestion. 'but they were demoralised and ...'?

• Link to St. Oswald's Church, Winwick in the image caption?

::Done.

• Link to the Rump Parliament?

::Done.

• In note 6, link to Scone?

::Done.

• In Dow 1979, remove the Ltd. suffix from the publisher name, as done for Young 1996?

::Drat! Done.

• In the biblio, link to Michael Braddick, Charles ffoulkes, Jane Ohlmeyer?

:All done.

• Add the archive URL for the Historic England source? It is unlikely to go offline but government websites often change their URLs.

::I have no particular objection - although I struggle to imagine Historic England changing its URLs - but could you point me towards the instructions or remind me how to hand-archive? It has been a loong time since I did anything other than run the archiving bot.

That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

::Hi Matarisvan, excellent stuff - thank you. All of your comments addressed I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:::@Gog the Mild, the SANDWICH issue is resolved. I would indeed prefer "uprisings" to "risings", but it's your choice. For the map, I like the background addition you've done to the Gloucester marking, it is much more readable than making the font size larger. I've added the archive URL myself. Everything else is alright. Matarisvan (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:::*Rising: there are plenty of uprisings which are known as "risings" and where it would be incorrect to refer to them as "uprisings": Easter Rising, Jacobite rising of 1745, Pentrich rising, Fenian Rising etc. But I have changed all four cases of "rising" in this article to "uprising".

:::*Map labels tweaked.

:::*The way images are sized in military conflict infoboxes has just changed. I would be grateful if you could check that I haven't recreated the sandwich in updating this one.

:::*Hi Matarisvan and thanks for sorting out the archiving. I think that everything is now covered. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:::*:@Gog the Mild, I can confirm that the infobox changes haven't caused a sandwich. Everything else looks good, therefore I can support. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Not much from me. All as excellent as one expects from this source. A few minor carps and quibbles, mostly about the prose:

::Ah ha. The New Model Reviewer wheels into action.

• "As the situation with regards to the siege" – I think you want "with regard to", rather than "with regards to", which sounds like sending a greeting.

::Done.

• "around 2,800 – all of them experienced veterans." – as opposed to inexperienced veterans?

::Tweaked to "all of them experienced fighting men." Does that work?

:::It does. Tim riley talk 08:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• "Their effectiveness was reduced because of their commander, Major General George Munro, refusing to accept any subordination" – this is our old friend the gerund again. Either "because of [his] refusal" or "because [he] refused" is wanted here, I'd say.

::I despair of ever sorting out gerunds. Changed. Thank you.

• "Each was composed of both musketmen and pikemen. ... A well-trained musketman" – musketman is new to me and, more to the point, unknown to the OED, Chambers and Collins. You use "musketeer" elsewhere and I suggest you stick to that. (You may very reasonably object that those authorities are fine with "pikemen", "cavalrymen" and "militiamen", but that's the way it is.)

::How very odd. The sole unisex opportunity in a ECW fighting formation. So be it.

• "using the slow match while controlling a horse inconvenient" – "inconvenient" sounds a bit of an understatement. If I were perched on top of a damn' great horse I would find it more terrifying than inconvenient to start faffing about with fiddly equipment like this. Perhaps something on the lines of "the cavalry, who found it difficult to ignite and use the slow match while controlling a horse"?

::You have no appreciation for English military understatement. Remind me to tell you about "a bit sticky" one day. Do you really think that a reader will fail to comprehend? Or that "difficult" makes the situation significantly clearer than "inconvenient"?

:::I do not press the point. Tim riley talk 08:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• "Several Scottish infantry regiments had light-weight, small-calibre" – "lightweight" is all one word according to all three of the dictionaries I use.

::Ah well.

• "within two days march" – "days" would be better as "days'" – with the possessive apostrophe, I think, as in "one week's money", "two years' supplies" and suchlike.

::Yes indeed. Or even a hundred years' war?

:::Good point. Tim riley talk 08:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• "seasoned veterans" – contrasting with the unseasoned veterans?

::A "veteran" is someone who has served in the military. A veteran who has been "blooded" is a different, and more dangerous, thing. But tweaked for a general audience.

:::No. The OED says a veteran in this sense is "A person with long experience in military service or warfare" and Chambers gives "a person who has seen long service in any activity; an experienced soldier ..." Though admittedly Chambers mentions the AmE "vet", meaning someone who has served in the army however briefly, that isn't relevant here unless there were large numbers of Americans fighting for the Roundheads or the Cavaliers. Tim riley talk 08:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• "nearly all of the Scottish units were under strength" – do we need the "of" here or in "the Scots had put all of their troops", later?

::Good points.

• "The make up of the separate, nominally Scottish force" – I'm treading carefully here as I don't want to suggest you make it appear they were wearing eye-shadow and mascara, but I think make-up should be hyphenated.

::Done. Wiktionary suggests they are equally acceptable alternates.

• "many of the Scots were experienced veterans" – it's the non-rookie veterans again!

::Tweaked.

• "not a fifth man could handle a pike" – nonsense! Anyone could handle Elizabeth David's delicious pike with beurre blanc or pike quenelles with crayfish sauce.

::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8XeDvKqI4E]

:::Excellent! Tim riley talk 08:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• "bar two infantry brigades" – is "bar" a little colloquial? Not sure.

::My (non-standard) version of the OED says it has been used in this sense since at least 1714. So by now itis probably acceptable.

• "and a cavalry rear guard" – "rearguard" is all one word in my dictionaries.

::They have squeezed up.

• "Scottish prisoners who had served voluntarily, as opposed to being conscripted..." – not challenging this but just wondering how it could be demonstrated in each case whether the man was a volunteer or a conscript.

::The sources say not, but I am guessing the pay records might have been captured. Plus, separate everyone, threaten them, question them separately, and put it all together. And if you make the odd mistake, well, God will know his own.

:::I see. Understood. Tim riley talk 08:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• "were sold as slaves: to work the land in the Americas or as galley slaves to Venice." – the colon seems a bit odd; I'd use a comma or a dash.

::Ok.

• "declared his son Charles II, King of Britain" – I'm quite sure you're accurately relaying what the source says, but even so it seems odd that the Scottish parliament thought it could unilaterally declare Charles king of Britain, especially as there was no such state at the time.

::Everyone brings this up. They were deliberately poking the English in the eye with a sharp stick. "Diplomacy" never changes eh?

:::Quite, Tim riley talk 08:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• There are a few multiple citations that are not in numerical order. This may be intentional but I mention them just in case:

:*envelop the opposing formation.[42][43][38]

:*turning the unit more difficult.[39][38]

:*cutting and thrusting.[45][36]

:*in the vicinity of Preston,[67][65]

:*retreat to the Ribble bridge.[73][69][74]

:*as numerous as the Parliamentarian army.[85][86][79]

:*the rain continued.[90][84]

:*agree on the total numbers.[99][100][55]

::WP:CITEORDER "... references need not be moved solely to maintain the numerical order of footnotes as they appear in the article."

• One para has just one citation for its 117 words and four sentences: just checking that your ref 64 covers all of them.

::That's a hard-working little citation. Yes it does, but thanks for keeping an eye on it.

• WP:OVERLINK: if I were you I'd reconsider your links to Scotland, helmet and beheaded, and I don't know I'd have them for mutiny, artillery, outflank or treason; I certainly wouldn't keep the duplicate links to infantry and cavalry.

::I'll chop 'em. Half of them will probably get added back. Some/many editors do like their links.

That's all from me. Over to you. I look forward to revisiting to add my support. – Tim riley talk 15:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

::I am building up an unpayable debt. Thank you once again. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Supporting. This article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria, and I have enjoyed reading and reviewing it. Tim riley talk 08:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Going to qualify that I don't have access to most/any of these sources, so can't easily spotcheck. Are there reviews of "Cromwell's Masterstroke: The Battle of Dunbar 1650", "Sword, Lance & Bayonet: a Record of the Arms of the British Army & Navy", "The Scottish Parliament 1649–1661: A Political and Constitutional Analysis" and "Cassell's Battlefields of Britain and Ireland"? Don't notice any inconsistency or obviously unreliable source, but this isn't a topic where I am an expert. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for picking this up. I will be away for a few days with limited internet and limited time, so apologies if I don't get back to you on these until Monday or Tuesday. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• "Sword, Lance & Bayonet: a Record of the Arms of the British Army & Navy". This is used once, to support an obscure military fact. That it was reprinted by Cambridge University Press 75 years after its first edition would suggest that it is sufficiently high quality.

• Reviews of "Cromwell's Masterstroke: The Battle of Dunbar 1650". There must be some, but I can't find them. The best I can do is a Google Scholar list of other works which have cited it. (Eg [https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/171549/1/journal.pone.0243369.pdf]

• Reviews of "The Scottish Parliament 1649–1661: A Political and Constitutional Analysis". The second item [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=The+Scottish+Parliament+1649%E2%80%931661%3A+A+Political+and+Constitutional+Analysis&btnG= here] has the start of a review, but irritatingly I can't persuade the full version to open. Again it is only used to support one narrow historical point.

• Reviews of "Cassell's Battlefields of Britain and Ireland". At last! See [https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=55adbe59-e333-41c2-a491-246add609fff%40redis&bdata=Jmxhbmc9ZW4tZ2Imc2l0ZT1lZHMtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=19669083&db=f6h here]. Brief and for History Today, but very positive.

I have paper copies of Reese and Cassell's - the first and last you list above - if you would like any pages emailing. And about half of the other sources, come to that.

Hi Jo-Jo and sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I have been banging my head against a wall looking for reviews, to very little avail. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:Meh, OK, if no objections arise this can probably stay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I reviewed this at GAN with FAC in mine. I have skimmed the article and I don't see any degredations from the version I reviewed at GAN; only improvements, so support. Hog Farm _Talk 05:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Non-expert prose review:

• "Not contemplating that Cromwell would act so recklessly Hamilton was caught with his army on the march" comma after recklessly

::Done.

• "Although still at least as strong as the whole Parliamentarian army they fled towards Wigan in a night march." Comma after army.

::Not the way I use commas.

• "In 1639, and again in 1640, Charles I, who was king of both Scotland and England in a personal union, went to war with his Scottish subjects in the Bishops' Wars." -> Lots of commas at the beginning of this sentence is negatively affecting the phrasing. Perhaps, "Charles I, who was king of both Scotland and England in a personal union, went to war with his Scottish subjects in the Bishops' Wars of 1639 and 1640."

::I like it. Done.

• "After years of rising tensions the relationship between Charles and his English Parliament also broke down," Comma after tensions.

::Not the way I use commas.

• "Body armour – a cuirass (metal chest and back plates) – was worn by most cavalrymen," This feels like the start of a bulleted list. Maybe, "For body armour"?

::Rephrased.

• "at no faster than a trot – to maintain formation" remove the dash

::The resultant repetition of "formation" didn't really work, so I have rephrased.

• "The nearest component of the main, Scottish, contingent of the Royalist army was 1 mile (1.6 km) to the west of Langdale's corps." I think the commas are wrong, or the word "Scottish" is in the wrong spot?

::Apologies, I missed this on my first run through. I have looked at this repeatedly and for the life of me I can't see the problem. I could replace the commas with dashes, but I suspect that wouldn't address whatever the problem is. Or I could remove "Scottish" altogether - I don't think the trivial additional amount of information is worth whatever stumble it is causing you. Do you have a preference, or a different suggestion?

::* I am reading this sentence again and cannot make sense of it, even within the context of the article. I'll try to break down the sentence to see if I am missing anything: something Scottish is the nearest component of the main. Not sure what the Scottish thing is: it could be the contingent of the Royalist army? Or is the Scottish thing the nearest army/battalion/unit of measurement for military that is closest to the Royalist forces? I just think there is something missing to explain what is meant here. Z1720 (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Right. Thanks for that Z1720. I am aware of how difficult it can be to explain why you are not understanding something you are not understanding. I have removed "Scottish", which is a trivial piece of additional information but not worth including if it confuses a reader. (And should be discernible to a reader paying close attention anyway.) This means the article now reads "The nearest part of the main contingent of the Royalist army was 1 mile (1.6 km) to the west of Langdale's corps." Does that work? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes it does, resolved. Z1720 (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• "However, two parliamentary cavalry regiments – each up to 480 men strong – operating on their right were able to make better, if slow, progress." -> "Two parliamentary cavalry regiments operating on their right – each up to 480 men strong – were able to make better, if slow, progress."

::Why. Personally I struggle to parse the suggested new version.

• "Fighting off three attacks by Parliamentarian cavalry they eventually swam their horses to the south bank." comma after cavalry?

::Not the way I use commas.

I'm at "Fight for the bridge" and will continue at a later time. Feel free to respond to the above while waiting for my remaining comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::Excellent, detailed stuff Z1720. Thank you, I appreciate it. Your comments to date all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I will continue this below:

• "By now night was falling" This is a historical event, "now" seems a little weird to me. Perhaps "By then night was falling"

::Good point. I have removed "By now" as superfluous.

• "took up a position to hold off the Parliamentarian pursuit. Throughout 18 August the" Suggest starting a new paragraph at this full stop, for potential easier readability.

::Done.

• "were sold as slaves – to work the land in the Americas" I don't think the dash should be there, or perhaps it should be a colon?

::Yep, a colon works. Thanks.

• "Preston and Winwick were the last battles of the Second English Civil War, Colchester surrendered to Fairfax on 27 August 1648." Replace the comma with a semi-colon

::Done.

• Not sure if Note 4 should end with a full stop.

::That is very tactful of you - my typo corrected.

That's it for a first readthrough. I'll respond to the above comments if needed, in a later edit Z1720 (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks again Z1720. All actioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi Z1720, is there more to come on this? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::::{{re|Gog the Mild}} Sorry for the delay. I added a response to "The nearest component of the main, Scottish," sentence, because I cannot make sense of what it is trying to say. Z1720 (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Support concerns have been addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Good afternoon {{@FAC}}. I was wondering if I could have permission to start another? This one has four general supports, one ongoing review with all comments addressed, a source review pass, an image review with all comments dealt with and has been open for three weeks. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:For sure. FrB.TG (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::Looking at closure, I find the first sentence quite a mouthful. My first thought for reworking the lead para is as follows. I'm not entirely happy with it but it does break things down into bite-size chunks and you might well tweak it into something much better... {{blockquote|The battle of Preston was fought on 17 August 1648 during the Second English Civil War. A Parliamentarian army commanded by Lieutenant General Oliver Cromwell attacked a considerably larger force of Royalists under James Hamilton, Duke of Hamilton, near the Lancashire town of Preston; the Royalists were defeated with heavy losses.}}

:::Done. Thanks Ian. For future reference feel entirely free to make any changes which you believe will improve an article without running them past me in advance, either as a coordinator, a reviewer or a drive-by editor. In the improbable event that I disagree I will reverse BRD and obtain your permission before reverting; in the more conceivable event that I wish to tweak one of your changes I shall similarly seek your acquiescence before doing so. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Why thank you Gog. Thus emboldened, I'll make a couple of other points:

::::#The first para of the Retreat subsection is uncited.

::::#:Drat! {{u|Ian Rose}}, Z1720 suggested above that this sub-section be split into two paragraphs. Which I did, but stupidly forgot to duplicate the citations. Now done. Thanks for picking it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::#::I guessed it was something like that but played dumb (not difficult).

::::#There are several instances in the Battle section where citation numbering is out of order. If this is deliberate, no prob; if not you might like to tweak (other sections could be similar, I didn't check them for that).

::::#:It is deliberate. (And in part on the assumption that WP:CITEORDER ("references need not be moved solely to maintain the numerical order of footnotes as they appear in the article") applies to FAs.)

::::#::Absolutely.

::::Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

{{FACClosed|promoted}} Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC){{Fa bottom}}