Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/English invasion of Scotland (1400)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 21:28 19 October 2025 FACBot (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

English invasion of Scotland (1400)

Nominator(s): —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I'm afraid I'm picking on the Scots again  :) it's a kind of bookend to its counterpart of 15 years earlier; I think they'll make a nice pair. To be fair, too, the English come out probably worse in this than the previous campaign, albeit doing even less while it was taking place. Even the contemporary hoi-polloi—usually dead keen on a bit of old-fashioned neighbour bashing—were distinctly unimpressed. Hopefully, you agree with me that it's ready; all comments and suggestions welcome. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: A month in, with image/source reviews passed, and no outstanding issues to attend to (I think!) ... any chance of launching another nom? —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Blason_George_Dunbar.svg: source link is dead
  • File:Robert_of_Albany.jpg needs a US tag, and where was this published?
Thanks Nikkimaria. I've updated the visual source for Dunbar (and added another text source).
Albany's seal was created c.1400 and published by English historian Walter de Gray Birch in 1905. Gray Birch died in 1924,[1] so the book presumably entered PD in 1994. (Added this to Commons)
Percy tag added. Thanks very much! —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Graham

Support This is exceedingly well written. I'm impressed and a little jealous. I'm sorry I have nothing constructive to suggest. Well done. Graham Beards (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards That's really generous of you! Thanks! And especially coming from such a noted FA writer. Cheers! —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MS

Lead
  • Could the relevant language template ("Use British English") be added to the mainspace?
Excellent idea.
  • Could we a non-breaking space here-his cousin Richard II.?
Done.

It is presently spread across two sentences in the Android view.

  • You could rephrase “Not only was no pitched battle ever attempted” to avoid double negative.
Yes. That was a really weird and unnecessarily confusing construction.
Background
Think I've sorted this now.
  • Ensure consistency on descriptors: either avoid (“As historian Chris Given-Wilson…” and "Historian A. L. Brown suggests...") or ignore (“The historian Anne Curry…”) to prevent false titles.
Ah, it's funny you should say that, MSincccc  ;)
  • Consider linking “et alia” → et alia

(Latin phrase) or et al. if article exists/redirects.

Done; cleverly, {{lang}} allows wikilinks inside it.
  • Fix punctuation around “coronation day—Wark Castle” (currently double-hyphen markup looks broken).
Think that's sorted.

MSincccc (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Planning
  • How about linking medievalist and introducing Given-Wilson as such in the lead itself?
Not done (yet), only because there isn't (I think) a mention of CGW in the lead?
  • "acknowlede" → "acknowledge", "Warwck" → "Warwick", "skiled" → "skilled", "armes" → "arms",
    • Typos.
D'oh. Done.
  • Delink "London"?
To be fair, it wasn't really SKYBLUE as it linked to Port of London rather than the city; but delinked anyway, because it was probably an unnecessary detail.
  • Minor grammar/clarity: "Henry's was an experienced army" → "Henry commanded an experienced army".
Done.
  • Consistency: "archer" → "archers" (plural) throughout.
Not (yet) done, only because I can't actually find a singual usage?
  • Simplify/reduce redundancy: "by far the biggest retinue" → "the largest retinue".
Done.

MSincccc (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign

"had had to be requested" → could be simplified to "had to be requested"

Done. Yeah that was a bit strange. The past historic or something?
  • "Newcastle" is linked on third mention.
Linked and full name on first mention only.
  • "wreacked" → "wreaked" and "within which" → "where"
    • Typos.
Done. Wreacked should be a word though.
Aftermath
  • "par pluseurs blanches paroles et bealx promesses" → "par pluseurs blanches paroles et beaux promesses"
Good catch.

That's all for now. MSincccc (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers MSincccc, hopefully I've addressed your points; some good catches in there. There's just a couple I'd appreciate clarification on. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed a typo and, for good measure, lend my support. MSincccc (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated MSincccc, many thanks for looking in  :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:58, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Background
  • "War with Scotland had started under King Edward I": "War between England and Scotland"?
Planning
  • "Historian A. L. Brown": "The historian..."?
  • "Whilst": slightly whimsical spelling: "While" would be slightly better
Campaign
  • "delay: The King's": lower case "t"?

Slim pickings from a nicely written piece. - SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, thanks indeed! Very generous of you. I found a couple of other examples of inconsistent post-colon capitalisation a colon, and have dealt with them accordingly. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SchroCat, for the revioew and support. And also for the note—that looks right up my alley. I've left a placeholder for either tomorrow or the next day, if that's OK. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

An excellent article – clear, readable and evidently well sourced. A few points on the prose:

  • "nor did the King besiege Scotland's capital ... deplete further the king's coffers" – capitalising or not capitalising "the King" – here and later?#
I think I've caught them all—but then I obviously thought I had the first time!
  • "these campaigns were "enforcing ... royal will ... It also instilled national unity " – lurch from plural to singular.
Pluralised.
  • "much of the English nobility was keen on a pre-emptive strike|" – really was keen, rather than were?
Done (and below!)
  • "In particular, the Percys ... at the instigation of the Percies" – make up your mind. I think the first is much preferable (I prefer to be one of the Rileys rather than one of the Rilies.)
Good choice. I hope I haven't Rilied you, Tim  :)
In Paris I am invariably addressed as Monsieur Rilly to rhyme with silly. Tim riley talk 17:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Probably as persuasive to Henry as his lords " – should the second "as" be "and"?
Yes, I think so.
  • "betrayed by the Rothesay's uncle" – do we want the definite article?
Lost.
  • "not only was he a significant figure in Scottish politics in his own right" – what did he signify? If you mean "important", "major" or some such, why not just say so?
Of course. Worse, though, is that I think you've reminded me that on (possibly several!) previous occasions!
  • "Henry's father, John, Duke of Lancaster" – this would be John of Gaunt, and I think it would be helpful to readers to say so here.
Yes, I've expanded the link to John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster.
  • "retinencia regis" – translation and explanation inline or in footnote, please.
Done.
  • "says Curry et al." – lurch from singular to plural.
Good catch.
  • "The English nobility was honoured to follow the King ... The king—accompanied by Dunbar ... "the King's own tents" – more in-and-our running with capitalisation of "king". And I'm still not persuaded by "the nobility" as a singular rather than a plural noun.
Done per above.
  • "the English army was sufficiently large to be unassailable by the Scots, and they offered no resistance " – for clarity I suggest "who offered" instead of the ambiguous "and they offered"
Thanks.
  • "at one point even verbally instructing" – "verbally" means "in words" – written or spoken – and as I don't imagine the king used semaphore I think the precise word you want here is "orally"
I do see what you mean. As it happens, on a reread, I think we can drop the word: it's his involvement in minutiae that's important rather than the method of conveying the message. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
  • "knights on each side would melee" – the OED prescribes diacriticals here: mêlée
Done.
  • "financial dire straits " – slightly odd word order: one might expect "dire financial straits".
Yes, I see what you mean.
  • "par pluseurs blanches paroles et beax promesses" – this source says "bealx promesses", not "et beax promesses"
Ah! As indeed I originally wrote, but then changed per another reviewer  :) I don't think {{Sic}} is probably warranted (do you?), but I've changed the {{language}} template to Old French rather than modern, which should alert the reader that spelling may not be as expected. Does this work?
Works fine for me. Tim riley talk 17:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to age and infirmity" – in AmE "due to" in this sense is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
Done, thanks. I seem to have been much influenced by Americana recently.

I hope some of this is useful. – Tim riley talk 15:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Always useful, always a pleasure. I've addressed all your suggestions, I think, but you may want to confirm some of may stylistic choices above. Thanks very much for the review! —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One last read-through and I'll be back to sign off here. Tim riley talk 17:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Signing off. Happy to support. Meets all the FA criteria as far as I can see. Tim riley talk 19:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Cite 41's page range should be 1401–1402
Good spot!
I fixed that for you!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Total facepalm at not actually doing what I said! Thanks for that.
  • Cite 42 refers to the rebellion of the Lords Appellant, not the Epiphany Rising
May I respectfully disagree? From p. 47–48:

Accounts of the 'Epiphany Rising', especially its early stages, are thoroughly confused, but according to the record of one of the trials held in its aftermath the plotting had been going on, mainly in London, since early December [1400]. The chief conspirators were the earls of Kent, Salisbury and Huntingdon, Thomas Despenser, Ralph Lord Lumley, and Thomas Merks

However, on account of this, I've adjusted the page range from 48–50 to 47–50 to include details on the plot's origins.
There's something odd going on here. I've got the US edition of this and p.48 is the beginning of Chapter 4, which covers the period 1387–1389 and all other page numbers were fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: cite 42 is Given-Wilson 1993 (Chronicles of the Revolution); can you confirm you're not, for instance, looking at Given-Wilson 2016 (Henry IV)...? In which p.48 is indeed the first of ch. 4 :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, it was probably down to the fact that the alpabetization was out, as you noted below, specifically, Given-Wilson's two works were separated! —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:53, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
<embarrassed>Quite right, I was looking at the Henry IV biography!</embarrassed>--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is so like something I would do. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked all the cites for Given-Wilson 2016, Curry, et al, Brown & Summerson and Hoskins
Thanks!
  • Cite formatting is fine
  • Bibliography needs to be alphabetized
Check.
Well spotted. Talk about annoying—it's precisely what I suggest in my reviews  :) ​

Passing--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review. I am going to pick on some of the wording in the lead for starters, which will no doubt be irritating and for which apologies.

It wouldn't be FAC without it :p —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deposing the previous king, his cousin Richard II." → 'deposing the previous king, his cousin Richard II, in 1399' or '... September 1399'?
Yes, 1399 is good.
  • "Henry IV urgently wanted to defend the Anglo-Scottish border". I know what you mean, but how does one defend a border? I mean, it has no physical existence. Any chance of briefly saying what that term is shorthand for instead.
If you know what I mean, I'm open to suggestions, but to be honest, I don't see it being particularly Byzantine. I could change it to "defend the Scottish border"—the exact phrase used in the source and one used regularly by academics (and Churchill)—but political constructs are as much fought over as those with physical existence.
  • "heighten his own image as a strong ruler and reinforce the new regime." Heighten his image - fine; "reinforce the new regime", er, what does that mean?
Again, it's a pretty common term; if you see this, it begs the question: if a regime can be established, why cannot it be reinforced? "Strengthened his government" might work, but to be honest, it sounds slightly more insipid to me. Henry hadn't just taken over a government, he had seismically fractured political society; Richard's deposition ended 245 years of patrilineal Plantagenet rule: "Hardcore, Lawrence".
  • "Edinburgh or its Castle." Lower case c.
Done.
  • Is there a source for coup d'état and et alia not being considered English?
Academic ephemera. Anglicised.
  • "They also instilled national unity following the upheaval caused by Richard's deposition." "t=They" didn't. Just the singular 1400 one did.
Catch. Done it.
  • "as well as the claim to the Scottish throne advanced by Edward I in the 13th century." I can't find this in the source given. 2. Why "13th century"? A lot of blood had flowed down the Tweed in the four previous years.
Yeah, turns out it's on p.169; sorry about that.
No worries, but perhaps amend the cite?
Blast—I thought I had!
Here, G-W is talking about Henry's harking back to the 'good old days', and 'the possibilities which history presented', etc.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog, always a !@#$%^&* pleasure  ;) —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who was appointed Regent." Lower case r.
Done.
  • "George Dunbar, Earl of March had felt that he had been betrayed". Delete "had". (Unless you mean to imply that he no longer felt that way.
I don't think so! Lost the 'had'.
  • "since they had led a punitive raid". Does "they" refer to Donald and John or the Dukes of Rothesay and Albany?
Clarified "the latter two"?
  • "the massive army assembled in 1345 (that which fought Crécy)". Which has been estimated at 7-15,000 strong. (Eg Sumption estimates 7,000 to 10,000 based on the amount of shipping used to transport it; Wagner gives "about 10,000".) It was larger than most later armies, being pre-Black Death, but not especially "huge"; eg Wagner gives the English army of the Rheims campaign as 12,000. I know this is cited, but scholarship in the 50 years since Brown has produced a more nuanced view.
I only threw in Crécy for you Gog :p You're right about scholarship moving on, of course; ironically, the following footnote uses much more up-to-date research (Curry et al). I've folded it into the main text, does that work? It adds wordage though. The gist of what I am clumsily trying to say, a la Curry, is that the army was smaller than 1345 but bigger than most others?
  • Note 7: "was approximately twice the daily wage for a skilled tradesman". Does the cite given support this?
Two things here. The article author is an arse, and only linked to TNA's main page, not the currency converter. And secondly, yes it does say that, but I now see you have to input the data. It's a bit like the Consumer Price Index thing. (TNA also gives purchasing power rather than just a modern amount, which has come up before (somewhere)). I haven't workled out how to save the actual output, if there even is a way, of course.
  • "both to besiege Scottish trade". Maybe "besiege" →'blockade'?
Excellent, that's far more naval.
  • "... sea salt for Newcastle upon Tyne, Lindisfarne and Berwick for revictualling the army." Should the first "for" be 'to'?
Of course thanks. As the salt was going to Newcastle, Lindisfarne and Berwick, but Newcastle, Lindisfarne and Berwick weren't allowed to keep it.

More to follow. Looking good so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog. See what you think re. the 1345 army and comparisons. Also, if you (or if you know of anyone who might) have suggestions re. embedding the currency results in the ref. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance you could send me Curry et al page 1387?
Of course, although to be fair I only use it once. Would you like the whole thing?
Whichever is easiest. I am only interested in page 1387.
  • "first King of Albion in their cause". Much as I dislike a superfluity of commas, one after Albion would aid understanding.
Aha, OK.
  • "Either, it was hoped, would impel the Scots to negotiate." The Scots were already willing to negotiate. ("Now, with an English invasion imminent, the Scots attempted to reopen negotiations." I think you mean something slightly different.
Point. "Would make them submit" is meant; I can't think of a better word off the top of my head?
  • "who offered no resistance as the invaders marched through Haddington on 15 August." Did they offer resistance before and after 15 August?
Well no, because the English hadn't crossed the border until the previous day.
  • "6 11⁄25 kilometres)". False precision, especially when prefaced by "about".
I completely agree, and it's really bizarre. T'm not sure what the template is doing; I've turned off the |frac= param, which I thought was the guilty party (and probably was, as the fraction is now much cleaner, but still point something). Is that better?
Yes. Personally I would have not converted "about 4 miles" to a metric measurement to the nearest hundred metres, but I can live with it.
  • "a port area on the southern coast of the Firth of Forth". Why "area"?
Check. Removed.
  • "Nor were any English knights made." Maybe a note explaining the significance of this?
Yes, good idea. I can do something with this, but it'll have to wait until tomorrow, I'm afraid, as I'm forced to go to the pub now.
Sounds dreadful.
Tiresome in the extreme *hic*
Explantory footnote (#7) now added.
  • "There are no dates of any events between 15 and 29 August. Are none known?
Unfortunately, not. I assume that's because nothing significant enough for chroniclers to record actually happened; someone called it a war of words, so Henry probably just spent his valuable time sending and receiving letters to/from Rothesay. I've included an opening line clarifying that.
  • "the Scots Douglas launched punishing raids". Add an apostrophe?
Actually the first "Douglas" was an error; per the source, "the Scots" invaded Northumberland, while it was "Douglas" who got to Bamburgh; tweaked.
  • "equivalent to £9,639,900 in 2023". False precision?
Bloody template. It's due to the |r=, which RoySmith did try and explain to me last time, but I didn't realise it changed with the number of figures. It's now at 9,640,000, which I think is probably as good as it gets.
  • "The campaign had cost at least £10,000 ... Henry also needed to pay his army!. This means that the £10,000 did not include the troops wages - all those shillings. Is that right?
Clarified that the ten grand is the gross total including wages.
  • "Dunbar's defection to the English crown exacerbated tensions all the more." Does "all the more" add anything?
It does not! Removed.
  • "and his royal prerogative than his predecessor had." Say what?
Err, yeah. The important bit is the common weal in the north, etc, not the royal prerogative, so cut that. Nice short sentence now.
Done.
  • Cite 83 refers to page 258, but the article cited is, correctly, given a range of pages 89 to 110.
Tricky one this; the ref was given me in a previous review, and gratefully recieved, of course, albeit citing page number 358  :) Looking at the source, it's probably intended to point to p.89 + n.7, although that only states that £50K was more than the king's annual revenue (in 1328/9-1330-1, 1333/4, 1340/1), not that that revenue "was often less than £30,000". Rogers cites J. H. Ramsay, and a glance at Ramsay confirms it's not a wholly accurate picture as far as this article is concerned. In fact, 1334 marks the last time Edward's revenues dipped below £50K; for most of his reign, income was far, far higher, and in the last few years—closer to the years of this article—it was always over £100,000, and often over £200K. This also ties in with Anthony Steel's figure of £116-120,000 for Richard II between 1385 and 1399. Having said that, Steel does suggest that HIV was relatively poorer than his immediate predecessors, with a calculable income of "well below" £90,000.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog, all done, with just one point unaddressed as yet. I'm mulling it over to work out how it fits in. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: update—I've contextualised the 10K cost of the campaign by way of the annual incomes of two nobles (Westmorland/Northumberland) mentioned in the text, which I think covers our bases. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:08, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka

  • War between England and Scotland had started under King Edward I. Cross-border raids and fighting had been the norm in Anglo-Scottish relations since the 1370s Why past perfect in both sentences? For me, the two sentences now imply, that Edward ruled after the 1370s.
Tweaked this to clarify the time spread.
  • Do we need to know that Boolingbroke was Earl of Derby in 1399?
  • Well, it's for consistency more than anything; everyone else with a title is referred to by it (Earl of Northumberland, etc). Also, to the uninitiated, it might sound as if, of all the titled nobility, the man who eventually took the throne possessed no title at all!  :)
  • ...The presence of Henry's sons I would make it clear that he is Henry IV, for Henry V is the last Henry mentioned.
Done.
  • Why "Scottish King" instead of "Scottish king"?
I think it's OK. But "King Robert III of Scotland" avoids the issue completely...
  • ...into Lochaber and Islay in 1398. I would make it clear that these were their estates/lands/fiefs/...
Done.
Good catch!
  • The 1399 coup had therefore merged the two largest affinities... The coup or Henry's ascension?
Ah, the latter—tweaked.
  • The English nobility were honoured to follow the King into war, as it represented one of their primary political duties. Honour or duty? I would delete this sentence, as it expresses a point of view: we have no information about how each lord actually felt.
Fair point, I've kept a shortened version of it since it was a duty rather than a personal feeling, but it was certainly a poor sentence.
  • I would delink "Henry's father", because he is mentioned as such in the same section.
Done.
  • ...several Household men had served with Henry in Lithuania Some context? (For instance, "during his 1390 crusade/..." and a link to the Siege of Vilnius (1390))
Excellent point, have added gloss re. Lithuanian civil war/Vilnius.
  • Nor were any English knights made. I would merge this sentence with the first sentence of note 8 to make clear the first sentence's relevance in the article's context.
Can you clarify? Do you mean the prose should say "it is unclear if the Scots raised their own army.[76] By 22 August the army's naval provisioning was likely proving less than adequate"?
No; luckily I'm no NorfolkBigFish, so I think I have a pretty sound understanding of copyright  :) At 269 out of 3428 words, it's less than 10% of the article. Perhaps more importantly, it's less than 3% of the original work, which is pretty comfortably within fair-use parameters. It's lengthy, but it's pretty much the only way of getting the modern reader into the medieval mindset, and I think it works.

Borsoka (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking in Borsoka, I've replied to all your points, and addressed nearly all. Just a point of clarification, requested if that's ok. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased to support promoting this well-written and engaging article. Borsoka (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's very generous, Borsoka, and thanks again for a useful review! —Fortuna, imperatrix 07:16, 10 October 2025 (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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/English_invasion_of_Scotland_(1400)/archive1&oldid=1317942960"