Talk:Battle of Inverkeithing

message: * Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. 
* This article would benefit from: in-text citations. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]] 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Battle of Inverkeithing's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "EB-GR-CrowningMercy":
From Battle of Worcester: 
From Third English Civil War: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Battle of Inverkeithing]] 

message: Greetings @Gog the Mild! This is a very small issue, if at all, but just wanted to ask, wouldn't just mentioning "pursued" and then abruptly ending the sentence; would that not be an incomplete sentence? Or maybe we can amend the next wording of "Charles" perhaps? Danial Bass (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Danial Bass. Nope. I am not saying that the phrasing in the article could not be improved, but as it stands the sentence is grammatically correct. (And reads perfectly naturally to me; not that that counts for too much.) As five reviewers signed off on the current wording at FAC and it is in the lead I am a little hesitant to make major changes. How would you feel about "Cromwell pursued them, leaving 6,000 men to mop up the remaining resistance in Scotland."? To my eye that is a little clunky, but I could grit my teeth. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I understand your reasoning. As I can see, you mostly edited this article, and I wouldn't want to be pushing my thoughts on this article. So I leave it up to you, but your new wording sounds like an improvement to me. Thanks! Danial Bass (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Unusually for Wikipedia, there is WP:FAOWN, but I wouldn't want to push that too far. So, if some readers find that tweak makes the phrasing flow better, fine. Changed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles. Charles 

message: This reversion is problematic. @DocWatson42 added a comma to correctly fix the sentence, and @Gog the Mild reverted it.
I do not understand constantly referencing WP:FAOWN. FAOWN has nothing to do with undoing copy edits on a FA. From FAOWN: it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first, emphasis mine.
Adding a comment is not a significant edit (especially when it's grammatically correct, and necessary). Having to document every copy edit someone wants to make on the talk page isn't practical, and stands against the entire purpose of the Wiki project. FA articles are not perfect. Undoing every copy edit because the article was deemed "good enough" during the FA process is really poor practice.
That actively makes the articles and therefore the site worse. No one is every going to contribute to articles in a copy editing fashion if you force everyone to use talk pages first. 71.11.5.2 (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I think the entirety of my edit proves your point—I often find mistakes in featured articles, in particular with MOS:ORDER (especially putting the  template at the bottom, which hasn't been the case for some years now), and in the case of ones covering battles, not including the  template in the infobox, along with not using that template's "event" parameter. —DocWatson42 (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Copy Edits 

message: In this article, which is about one single battle in a wider war, there is a background section that is very wide and detailed in scope. Is this not a a duplication of the war article and thus redundant?. Specifically, it seems a stretch to start by talking about the reasons for the Bishops' Wars 11 years earlier rather than a brief summary of the Anglo-Scottish War and Battle of Dunbar as covered in the "Prelude" section. Is this not sufficient Background?  As it stands now, it is rather like an article on the Battle of Iwo Jima having a background section that talks about the causes or lead up to the Pacific War! Since I've seen this elsewhere too and is this is a Featured Article, I'm wondering if there is WP policy or other thoughts from experienced editors on this?  Jp2207 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinions tend to differ. At FAC some nominators and reviewers like a good, full background. Others prefer a sketchier setting. For a general discussion you are probably best posting at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background