Talk:Great Siege of Scarborough Castle/Archive 1

Suggestions towards approval

In the section "royalist stronghold," the first sentence concludes "next several months." The timing reference has been lost by the new section. Please include dates. Russell D. Jones 14:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've made these edits. These expand the background of what happened in 1643-1644, before the siege, and include dates. Please let me know about anything else that needs doing. Thanks. John Stephenson 04:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Siege aspects

"Great" siege implies there were others, but the existence of other sieges isn't obvious.

I set up a redirect for cannonball. While we really need articles on siege warfare in general, it's probably worth mentioning that castles were essentially pre-gunpowder fortifications; cannon made them obsolete.

Looks good, though. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added some extra info to the introduction to mention the second siege that occurred after the Great Siege, plus a point about why the Great Siege was more notable (because of the fighting and the destruction of the keep). Actually there were various minor sieges earlier in the castle's history, but I think it's better to confine the article to the English Civil War. John Stephenson 05:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Approval

I am seeking approval for this version following comments made by Howard above - if there is anything that anyone feels is lacking with this article, please tip me off. Thanks. John Stephenson 07:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Without intending any criticism here, but something to learn for the future, this is not a topic where I was able to get any of the hard copy references; I don't live near a university library. Nevertheless, the description of siege operations seems consistent with my knowledge of other sieges, and I don't feel uncomfortable recommending the article. I think this will be a test of cases of fairly obscure subjects where an experienced Editor can check for plausibility rather than specific fact checks.

I would ask John and others if they'd be interested in collaborating in a higher-level general article on siege warfare. Vaubon, the French master of both fortification and siege, for example, I think is available online. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I could craft a stub, but I'm not that much of a military mind. Re: your earlier point. I understood that it would be unlikely that editors would have been able to consider many of the references for this and Scarborough Castle, so I ensured that all of the sources are from published works (other than local material on the nearby church), particularly local historian Jack Binns, who has written professionally on the Civil War and the castle. John Stephenson 08:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the capitalization of the title correct, or should it be changed to "Great siege ..."?

'Great Siege' is how Binns refers to it, because it is a particular siege. John Stephenson 08:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggestion regarding the references (if editors agree): The page references are of no interest to the general reader of the page -- the sources can be found in the bibliography. Therefore I think that these references could be "hidden" as html-comments: There they can be found by anybody who is really interested, but the page would look much cleaner.

Peter Schmitt 22:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

But why remove the page references? I think that would make it more difficult to follow up sources. John Stephenson 08:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not say "remove", only "hide". Why? Because 99 percent of the readers will not bother, and those few who want to check find the page references in the source. But it was just an idea. Peter Schmitt 23:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a possibility that this article could be moved into approval? Thanks. John Stephenson 07:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)