Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Pontvallain/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 December 2019 [1].

Battle of Pontvallain

edit
Nominators: Serial Number 54129 (talk) and Gog the Mild (talk)

In 1365 after 28 years of strife England won the Hundred Years' War and France signed a humiliating peace. In 1369 France reopened hostilities, using Fabian tactics and guerilla warfare. The English responded with the tactics of the first phase of the war, and in 1370 cut a wide swathe of fire and plunder across northern France. The French refused to be drawn. With winter coming on the English fell out and divided their forces. After a forced march Bertrand du Guesclin surprised a major part of the English, and wiped it out. With unusual coordination, a subordinate caught another English force the same day, also wiping it out. The English remnants were hounded remorselessly and the English position in France was wrecked.

The late-Medieval dream-team of SN and Gog bring you this gripping installment of the Hundred Years War. SN took it through GAN in February 2018. It has been thoroughly overhauled since then. SN has dug out every available source and provided the structural underpinning. Gog has installed all the twirly, baroque prose bits on the surface. Gog claims that this is a sensible division of labour; SN's opinion is very Medieval. They have both donned their helms and challenge all comers to meet them in fair fight over the merits of the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Support from Harrias

edit
Lead
  • "..was of approximately the same size." "of" is superfluous here.
Done.
  • The lead feels a little bit short for the article generally.
We wondered about that. I'll pad it by 2-3 sentences.
I usually get criticised for my over verbose leads. I have expanded the immediate background to the battle(s). What do you think?
  • Specifically, some context for where Pontvallain/Vaas/the Sarthe region are would be useful. (North-west France would be sufficient in the first sentence.)
Done.
  • "..large amounts of lost territory ." Rogue space before the full-stop.
Done. (Thanks SN>)
  • Add more location detail into the infobox too.
Done.
Background
  • "They also heavily defeated an invading Scottish army in England." This seems superfluous to the context of the battle, especially as it needs an explanatory footnote.
Boiled down to "and against an invading army of Scots in 1346" and the footnote has gone.
  • "...ransom.(approximately £350,000,000 in 2019 terms[note 2])" There is a lot to break down here. There needs to be a space after the full-stop. The text within the brackets therefore needs to start with a capital letter, and end with a full-stop. The note itself claims to be from 2017, accessed in 2018, and providing data for 2019. Clearly that doesn't add up.
Well it is supposed to self update, but as it is to the nearest £10mn it is still accurate. It will probably tick over to £360mn in about 2050. But updated anyway.
I take your point. {{Inflation}} does say (in bold) "Do not use {{CURRENTYEAR}}", but I guess that given the rounding this could be considered an acceptable exception. For the same reason, it also notes that actually, it is only up-to-date as far as 2018 for the UK.
I always use "current year" and so long as it is at least 100 years BP it seems to work fine. When I updated I used the 2019 version - this one - which does run to 2019. I wasn't trying to fudge that. (Unsurprisingly, it gives the same results to the sigfigs we're using.)
Is there a source for the conversion between three million écus and the 500,000 figure used in the inflation template? Harrias talk 22:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This was done by SN, but I have done the same for another article. It is past my bedtime here, so it will have to wait until morning. (I suspect that it is Sumption.)
Yes. Sumption: "English government accounts convert francs into sterling at six to the pound. In 1385 a new coinage was issued. The gold franc was replaced by the écu" It was niggling. I am really going to bed now. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..attempted to recapture castles in Normandy[10] Events.." Missing full-stop. Honestly, I'm six paragraphs in, and this article has a lot of minor typographical errors that I would not expect in a Featured article candidate...
Added.
  • "Events went poorly for England almost from the start: James Audley and John Chandos, two important English commanders, were killed in the first six months[11] while the French made territorial gains in the west, re-occupying the important provincial capital of Poitou and capturing many castles.[12] Men who had fought together[13] in earlier English campaigns, such Hugh Calveley, Robert Knollys and John Chandos, and had already won fortune and fame[14] were summoned from their retirements;[12] new men, such as John Hastings, Earl of Pembroke, were given commands." The chronology and tone feels off here: Chandos is killed in the first sentence. This is used as an example of the war going badly for England. Subsequently, we are told that a number of men are "summoned from their retirements" to fight. The way this is presented makes it feel like a consequence of the war going badly. Except that one of those men is Chandos, who has already died in our narrative.
Good point. Those two sentences seem to have become juxtaposed. Reversed. It now flows chronologically and sense wise. (I assume that we were both so close that we read what we expected to be there, rather than what actually was.)
Prelude
@Harrias: I have had a run through the whole article. I found plenty to fiddle with - one always does, but some of it you would have rightly picked us up on. I found almost no silly typographical errors - which makes me think that I missed them. I want to have another run through, and to check that I got things like switching all the inflation calculators to 2019 right, but it is past my bedtime. So if you could give us a pause for a short while I will, literally, double check for silly embarrassing errors. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As always, there's no rush. Just give me a ping when you're happy with it, and I'll crack on. Thanks for all the work so far on this. Harrias talk 23:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Apologies for the delay, and for the embarrassing errors. I have gone through this until I am boss-eyed, but still suspect that I am about to find out just how many gaps there are in my comb. At any rate, from my point of view it is as good as I can get it and ready for you to restart. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "..when a French army under Bertrand du Guesclin, heavily defeated an English force.." No need for the comma after "Guesclin".
Removed
  • "With winter coming on the English commanders.." "on" feels unnecessary here?
"Coming on" is an idiomatic expression - see {{wikt:come on}}. Without the "on" it means something slightly different.
  • "The French harried the surviving English into the following year.." I've gone back and forth with this, but I think it should be "Englishmen" rather than "English".
OK. Done. But then "French" four words earlier looks inconsistent to me.
  • Why "small-scale", rather than just "small"?
It looks a little odd to me. But on checking, you are correct, an entirely permissible usage. Changed.
Background
  • Unfortunately, in trimming the article because of my earlier comment, it now doesn't make sense: "The English campaigned frequently on the continent, gaining a long run of military successes against larger forces across France, and against an invading army of Scots in 1346." The invading army of Scots wasn't on the continent, causing minor confusion.
Silly of me. Try it now.
  • "This eventually led to peace being agreed.." This seems an odd way to start a paragraph; personally I'd merge paragraphs two and three together, as I think it would flow better.
Um'ed and ah'ed and have gone with your suggestion. (Something needed to be changed.)
  • In retrospect, I think the whole of "(Approximately £350,000,000 in 2019 terms.[note 1])" would be better as a note, it doesn't need specifying inline.
I am inclined to disagree over this. If you feel strongly on the point then I will footnote it, if you are not over concerned, can we leave it? If you are somewhere between, I will provide a rationale.) PS I have counted seven FAs of mine and three of SNs which have the same in line parenthetical formulation; there will be more.
  • Charles V is introduced nicely "..Charles V, the son and heir of King John..", whereas two paragraphs earlier, we jumped from reading about King Philip to King John by hearing that the latter had been captured. Perhaps a succinct introduction for John would also be helpful?
It would, it would. Done.
  • "They relied on Fabian tactics, or avoiding pitched battles and using attrition to wear down the English;[16] only attacking dispersed or isolated English forces." I would switch either remove "or", or alternatively switch it to "which", and also change to past tense. Currently, it could read that the relied on Fabian tactics or avoiding pitched battles etc.
Point taken. "or" removed. I have re punctuated, hopefully the tenses read better now.
Prelude
  • Note 2: "He was following, almost exactly, in the footsteps of King Edward's great chevauchée of 1359." Given it states "almost exactly", I think it needs to change from "in the footsteps of" to simply "the route of".
OK. (Gone with 'the route of'.)
  • "..the French defenders would not leave their positions. He tried to draw them out to fight them in the open, but the French would not take the bait." Nothing major, but I would prefer "did" rather than "would" in both instances here. This is probably just personal preference though.
I see what you are getting at, but that gives it a different meaning. I wouldn't (or didn't) want to change the first; I don't feel so strongly about the second.
  • The "freebooter" link isn't right.
Sorry, my misunderstanding.
  • "The English system of shared leadership led to jealousies between their regarding.." Missing a word after "their".
Inserted
  • "In November 1370 acrimony again broke out.." I would trim "again".
Trimmed.
  • "Knolles, as adept as the French were now becoming at guerrilla warfare, was aware that they were closing in." Personal preference, but I'm not keen on the readability of this sentence.
OK. Changed to a more general 'Knolles was aware that they were closing in, and of the risk this posed.'
Noted on this below. Harrias talk 13:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..so as to be able to continue to.." An overload of "to"s.
Split into a new sentence: 'This would enable them to be able to continue raiding the surrounding countryside.@
  • "..and they were clearly expected.." "clearly" is something of a peacock term here, I'd cut it.
Cut.
  • "..their opportunities to forage for supplies and to loot." To avoid repetition of "to", flip this around: "..their opportunities to loot and forage for supplies."
Phrased that way to suggest that the foraging was more important than the looting. How would you feel about 'which maximised their opportunities to forage for supplies and to loot'? (Which I have changed it to.)
  • "Minsterworth was probably the first to leave." This speculation requires inline attribution.
Done.
  • "Charles considered Guesclin had the.." I would insert "that" before Guesclin, personally.
Ah, the "that wars". There are editors who go round removing or inserting that's, even of FAs, according to their taste. I prefer them in, but have learnt to ignore their absence. Inserted.
  • "..and by 6 November Guesclin was in Caen raising an army. In November Guesclin concentrated.." Saying "by 6 November", and then "In November" seems a little incongruous.
I don't see that, but have changed to 'Guesclin concentrated his forces at Caen during November'. How do you feel about that?
  • "..was formed in Knolles's rear at Châtellerault.." I'm not keen on the use of "in" here; maybe "to" would work better?
Chewing this over, I am not happy with "rear". I don't think that at this stage the English can be said to have had a rear. So I have taken that out. The orientations of the various forces are given in the next sentence.
  • "covering more than thirty miles a day" Is this quote from the same "contemporary chronicler" as the first? If so, move ref #49 to after the second quote. If not, provide inline attribution for the second quote too.
Removed as getting too clunky.

Reviewed to the end of the Prelude, but I'm going to have to break off for the moment. More to follow. Harrias talk 15:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am always surprised at the number of "errors" (and errors) which can be picked up by a new reader, no matter how many eyes have already been over an article, or how thoroughly. But this is a bit silly. This is my first collaboration and I had anticipated this noticeably improving the copy edit quality. Instead it seems to have done the opposite - I am not sure how. And it has left the unfortunate and hard working reviewers picking up the pieces. I am grateful, but it is not fair on them. I am unsure what lesson to draw from this. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Wikipedia is collaborative by design; indeed the GAN, ACR and FAC processes are designed to facilitate that, and get more editors looking at, and helping to improve, articles. It is easy with retrospect to look at this nomination and suggest that it should have gone through PR or ACR before arriving at FAC, but ultimately, it would have just changed the venue that these suggestions were made. On my rare forays as a FAC reviewer, I am particularly picky, but that's not necessarily because I think there are lots of mistakes. Simply that any wording that doesn't sound absolutely perfect to me, I'll mention. Sometimes it's just me, and I'm happy for that to be pointed out, and no change to be made, as you have done. Overall, this is a great piece of work that makes what can be a complex period of warfare accessible to the everyday reader, and both yourself and Serial Number 54129 deserve a lot of credit for that.
I was hoping to complete my review this evening, but unfortunately, I'm too tired for the concentration I need to review, so I will aim to get back to it tomorrow or Wednesday. Harrias talk 21:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Really sorry; we're understaffed at work because of some illness, and I'm working silly hours at the moment, and by the time I get home, I just don't have the patience or concentration to review. I'm still intending to come back to this, but I'm relatively happy with what I've seen of the changes in response to my points so far. Harrias talk 07:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Don't worry about it. Sounds as if the last thing you need is the nagging feeling of an unmet commitment. Both SN and I appreciate the time and effort you have put in so far. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. So relax - at least about this - and come back to it as and when it feels less onerous. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding that Harrias , take your time! ——SN54129 12:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "The northeastern army.." and then later "Knolles crossed north-eastern France..". Be consistent, unless there is a grammatical reason for this I'm not aware of.
Hyphenated the two northeasterns as they were in the minority.
Prelude
  • "..which was nominally commanded by the Black Prince and actually by Sir John Chandos.." Is this the same John Chandos who was killed off in the Background section? If so, it feels weird for him to come back to life six paragraphs later. If not, a clarification would be beneficial.
No, I think that and a ref must've got lost in the mix: it was John of Gaunt, so amended.
  • "Knolles was aware that they were closing in, and of the risk this posed." This change now doesn't specify who 'they' are: maybe "Knolles was aware that the French were closing in, and of the risk this posed."
Good catch, done.
  • "..remarks the medievalist Kenneth Fowler.." and then a bit later "The historian Kenneth Fowler.." The second time, just "Fowler.." would be sufficient, without his first name or the descriptor.
That's Gog's passion for non-false-titles I believe  :)
Guilty as charged. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Battle
  • "..and the historian Jonathan Sumption speculates.." Again, Sumption was introduced earlier in the article.
As above  :) done.
  • "..were among the few survivors. They were taken prisoner by Guesclin." Personally, I'd prefer for this to flow straight through: "..were among the few survivors, and were taken prisoner by Guesclin." But, whatever.
No, you're right, it doesn't make for an excessively long sentence.
Aftermath

Harrias: I am losing track a little here. Could you summarise the outstanding issues at the bottom, or mark them in green or something, so my addled mind can catch them all? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • If we have to use "exculpate", and I appreciate that it has a specific meaning which is useful here, I think we need to provide a wikitionary link.
Good idea, done.

Fin. Harrias talk 13:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Harrias, hope you and my Chandos don't mind me fielding these points; I like to keep my hand in  :) Hopefully, your suggestions have (all) been addressed here. Much appreciated, cheers! ——SN54129 14:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cut from above:

  • "Men who had fought together in earlier English campaigns.." Is the fact that they fought together relevant enough to mention, or would "Men who had fought together in earlier English campaigns.." suffice?
I'm sure I'm missing somethng, but, Harrias, aren't they the same?
Sigh. Yes. I meant "Men who had fought in earlier English campaigns.." Basically, just removing "together"? Harrias talk 14:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"LOL" @me for that, I should've realised; yes, no problem, it's not a massively important factoid (it was really just a way of contrasting the experienced men—Chandos, Knolles etc—with those less so, such as Pembroke, who was too young to have fought with anyone on any previous campaign, if you know what I mean). ——SN54129 14:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is still outstanding. Harrias talk 07:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. "together" removed.
  • This probably occurs earlier too, but I missed it. Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, use {{lang}} for foreign language terms such as chevauchée.
I've clarified the language at first use; or does it need to be used on each subsequent occasion?
On each usage; MOS:OTHERLANG explains the rationale. Harrias talk 14:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to make an issue of this, but on checking, Wiktionary gives both wikt:chevauchée and wikt:chevauchee as English words. If we decide to go with this it means of course that it shouldn't be in italics. (Which is I believe, a holdover from me following a reviewer's request in the FAC of Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary may claim that, but none of Cambridge, Chambers, Collins or Oxford online English dictionaries have it listed. Harrias talk 09:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've found this link for The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages entry. Hanberke (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The link from The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages confirms that it is a French word, so this is still outstanding. Harrias talk 07:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I still think this is certainly a specific loan word from French. It is represented by an official entry in an Oxford Dictionary all in all, with etymology provided. Hanberke (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, it does not appear in any of four of the most respected English dictionaries. The point of {{lang}} is to help screen-readers know which language to use to pronounce the word; based on an entry in The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages, are you convinced that English language screen-readers will know the word? Harrias talk 08:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias and Hanberke: I am just checking that people are aware that SN made this change at the first mention of Chevauchée on the 27th. It doesn't show up on the article of course, because the word is already Wikilinked to Chevauchée. (Which includes the pronunciation.)
This needs to be enacted for every instance of foreign language terms, including "Chronique des Regnes de Jean II et de Charles V" and "reventions" (assuming that is italicised as a French term?), as well as each time chevauchée is mentioned (including the footnotes). Harrias talk 07:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
@Harrias: Apologies for my slowness of mind on both of these. Both now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: {{langfr|chevauchée}} template seems to have a display issue. Hanberke (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a couple of typos. I fixed them. Harrias talk 13:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on this, I am more than happy to give it my support. Harrias talk 13:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

edit
  • The formatting of the references is excellent, of course, but I think the "Prestwich, M." sources should be in chrono order. Either ascending or descending is OK, so long as it's consistent. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Felt like I let you down there, Ling  ;) but well spotted, have adjusted. Cheers! ——SN54129 12:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hanberke

edit
  • as the Carolinian phase, was significantly different to the previous one.

as the Carolinian phase, was significantly different from the previous one.

  • and by the late-14th century it and Poitou were fiefdoms of

and by the late-14th century, it and Poitou were fiefdoms of

  • on 2 October, in a direct response to Knolles's campaign.

on 2 October, in direct response to Knolles's campaign.

  • One of the most important of aspects of the Pontvallain campaign was

One of the most important aspects of the Pontvallain campaign was

  • Notes section
  • "famously rich" Richard, Earl of Arundel, who leant the King 40,000 marks,

"famously rich" Richard, Earl of Arundel, who lent the King 40,000 marks, Hanberke (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thorough reading and a few helpful touches. Glad to add my support. Hanberke (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats: from the bibliography:
  • Bell et al 2011: gives pub. location as "Woodbridge", whereas Gribit, and the various Wagners, give "Woodbridge, Suffolk", which I think is better. But in any case you should be consistent
True. "Suffolk" added where missing
  • Burne: maybe "Ware" should have a county, too? (I know where it is, but perhaps non-UK readers won't)
True again. Added.
  • Coulton: "&co" looks a bit ugly. Is that how the publishers style themselves?
It is (well: "& CO"), but company types are not normally given, and so deleted.
  • Neillands: maybe a county for Padstow?
Done.
  • Ormrod: what's the Yale University Press doing in Padstow? WorldCat gives the location as New Haven
It does. Obviously a typo somewhere along the line and glazed eyes by the time we had proofread that far. Apologies. I have added "Connecticut" for the sake of consistency. (And for those whose New England geography is shaky.)
  • Perroy: pub. location unclear. WorldCat says it's New York.
Agreed and changed.
  • Rogers 2000 and Rogers 2005: see comments above concerning Woodbridge.
Done.
  • Quality/reliability: No issues. The sources meet the required standard per the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that display of sloppiness Brian. Should be in better shape now. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Afternoon Brian. I was wondering if there was anything else for us to do on this, or if you feel able to sign off on it? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Still morning for me) – Yes, all well now. Good work. Brianboulton (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Brian. Enjoy your morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

edit

This is looking splendid. A tale well told, along with really excellent (and technically impressive) series of maps that help a lot. Just a handful of minor points from me:

  • You might standardise your possessive apostrophes for names ending in s. At present I see "Knolles's" with the usual BrE ess-apostrophe-ess and "Knolles'" with the (I believe) AmE ess-apostrophe. By my count BrE is winning by 9:3 at the moment, but a full-time score of 12:0 one way or the other would be a good thing.
I have discovered only this afternoon that this is covered by the MoS - MOS:POSS. Consequently BrE now has a clean sweep.
I didn't know about MOS:POSS and am glad to learn of it: thank you! Tim riley talk 21:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piping the "Sirs" – consistency wanted here also. Sir John Minsterworth gets his Sir included in the link; Sir John Cresswell doesn't. Nor do most other Sirs. But to my mind is it is much easier on your readers' eyes to include the Sir in the piping: it's more work for the editors, but avoids the jarring bump as the eye travels along the line.
It would never do for readers to suffer a jarring bump, and so the Sirs have been piped.
  • Gog and I have exchanged views before about the linking of what seem to me everyday terms (I'm thinking of cavalry, litter and ambush this time), but I do not press the point. But Paris should most certainly not be linked.
Ah, Tim. You should drop into Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Razing of Friesoythe/archive1 where I have just, under protest, linked Rhine, Nazi Germany and USSR. I would argue that few are immediately familiar as a means of transport as you may well be. Paris is delinked with prejudice. For me ambush and cavalry can go too, but I will defer to Serial Number 54129.
  • Was Bertrand du Guesclin appointed Constable of France or constable of France? We have both at the moment.
Well spotted. I struggled to find it hidden away in that caption. Done.
  • "The few English survivors of both battles still at large "scattered in confusion"" – if a verbatim quote is wanted (and I'm not sure it is needed in this case) I think you short-change your readers if you don't say inline whom you are quoting.
I could debate that in terms of the MoS, but will go with your option A and dequote it.
  • "Five hundred years later, when the French lost Alsace-Lorraine to Germany …" – "jingoistically" is a trifle tendentious unless it's a verbatim quote.
"Jingoistic" is the word used by the source.

That, I'm afraid, is all I can come up with by way of quibbles. I shall look in again in the confident expectation of supporting. Tim riley talk 18:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Mr riley. Did you have a restful break? It is good to see you back in the bracing fresh air of Wikipedia, and many thanks for dropping by this review.
By no means be afraid. The fewer your quibbles, the happier we are. Hopefully I have obliged you with the various changes noted above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to add my support. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. My compliments to both nominators. Tim riley talk 21:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

edit
  • They routed an invading army of Scots in 1346. – Without further explanation, the reader wonders why this is relevant to a background section on the prelude of the Battle of Pontvallain? Furthermore, this is an English affair only, giving the slight impression that the section tells the story from an English view point, not a neutral one.
Removed.
  • Men who had fought together[10] in earlier English campaigns and had already won fortune and fame, such as Hugh Calveley, Robert Knolles and John Chandos,[11] were summoned from their retirements;[12] new men, such as John Hastings, Earl of Pembroke, were given commands.[13] Events went poorly for England almost from the start: James Audley and John Chandos, two important English commanders, were killed in the first six months – this again gives the impression of being biased towards the English, as the French commanders are not mentioned.
Denamed apart from the two casualties, where it seems a little perverse not to mention the names.
  • The French were well prepared militarily, and immediately went on the offensive.[15] Charles was well situated in terms of financial and human resources. – Maybe an additional sentence would be helpful here explaining how Charles was able to make this chance, from the very desperate position the French had earlier in the war? Just wondering about this.
Good point. Added. Tried to be succinct, but could expand it almost endlessly if you feel that this is too brief.
  • As a result, he was unable to lead the campaign personally – Now it is all about a specific English campaign, but this campaign was never introduced? This confused me quite a bit while reading for the first time. How does it relate to the last activities mentioned in the "Background" paragraph?
Yes. Good spot. We were too close. I will work on putting together a proper introduction to this.
See next point down.
  • Meanwhile, the English campaign in the west – was also not introduced before.
See immediately above.
Right. Rewritten to explicitly separate out the two separate campaigns, and the two separate command structures. Hopefully clearer now. Thanks for flagging that up.
  • Also in the "Prelude", the French activities are outlined briefly, while the English are discussed in much greater detail.
Well now, there is probably more on the French in the two "movements" sections combined, given that a good part of the English one concerns the French reactions. The "Divisions among the English" is all about the English, and I assume that you are concerned that the article seems biased against them, as they come across as incompetents? But the sources are clear - they did behave incompetently. I am not sure what we can do about that. I would be very reluctant to downplay it or over-summarise it. I am also aware that we heap praise on the French: their innovations; their speed of movement; their ability to coordinate remote forces. Again, the sources are clear on this and I am not sure that it is reasonable to summarise it more than we do.
In terms of length, in military articles one inevitably writes more about the side which makes mistakes. After all, how much is there to say about a force which carries out an activity correctly. (When I wrote Battle of Crecy, when it came to the immediate prelude to the fighting I wrote more about the French: how their baggage train was less behind; how their knights' eagerness disordered them; how the crossbowmen were sent into battle without all of their equipment. And there wasn't a lot to say about the English, as they didn't mess anything up. As I said, that's the way things go with military conflict articles.) So a lot on the English divisions. The French cooperated smoothly; we say so - there isn't really a way to say this at greater length.
  • Longbows were mentioned earlier, but I miss some information how the French avoided them in the battle. The French version of the article appears to have something on it.
Fair enough. Information on this moved down to later in the article, under the battle section.

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jens Lallensack, many thanks for stopping by. Some good insightful points above; thanks. I have started work on them and will continue; I'll ping you when I finish. This is just to let you know that I am on to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Jens, all done. Your points above addressed. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gog, excellent work as usual. Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
For some reason the original 14th century illustrator crammed two, completely unconnected events onto one page: the battle and the anointment. I imagine because they both happened in the same month and the chronicler was tackling things chronologically. Which is on Commons as File:Anointing of Pope Gregory XI.jpg. I assume the title is because the original uploader wasn't interested in the battle half. I cropped the image to get just the relevant bit and didn't change the name. (To be honest I was unsure how to and worried that I would break it.)
There is a procedure on commons:Commons:File renaming. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I blame SN for that! ;-) Done.

All images are pertinent to the section. If the images are being used to illustrate a specific point (e.g the old map seems to say that after the Bretigny treaty the English held about 1/4-1/5 of France) the ALT text should contain that information.

OK. Done.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, that was swift. Thanks. Your three points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JJE. I believe that that is everything done. Is there anything else, or are you in a position to support? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support only on images, as I didn't check any other aspect of the article - military campaigns are not my cup of tea. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jo-Jo, appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

edit

Very comprehensive, scholarly, and well illustrated. Of course, some nitpicks to show I've read it before I support. Incidentally, until I read this I thought "barding" horses was what you did to help them cook better! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • a forced march followed by a night march—Any chance of avoiding the repeat of march?
How about after a forced march which continued overnight?
  • many castles many towns—why not the exact number?
Unfortunately, neither Fowler 2001 (for towns) nor Neillands 1990 (for castles) provide exact figures.
  • With unusual coordination.—Not sure if that's the right word. It seemed to be quick thinking by Guesclin rather than a cunning plan
Check. Reworded to avoid the implication that Sancerre was as cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University; In a coordinated attack, Guesclin's subordinate, perhaps?
Cheers, Jimfbleak, hopefully, addressed your points here. Thanks very much for looking in!
...and sorry we couldn't slip in any tasty horse recipes at the same time!  :) ——SN54129 14:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good, changed to "support" above. I'll let the culinary oversight go! I'd guess the equine casualties in a medieval war probably didn't go to waste Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • In a coordinated attack, Guesclin's subordinate, Louis de Sancerre --> "In a co-ordinated attack, Guesclin's subordinate, Louis de Sancerre"
No. wikt:coordinate is acceptable.
  • Edward claimed the French crown, proclaiming himself the rightful heir through his mother --> "Edward claimed the French Crown, proclaiming himself the rightful heir through his mother"
Done.
  • in which King John II of France, the son and successor of King Philip No reigns?
Ah! *Smacks forehead* Done.
  • estate in France since the reign of Henry II Same as above?
Done.
  • Link British pound in note 1.
Done.
  • failed to observe the terms of the treaty, Charles V No reign?
Done.
  • No reigns for Charles II of Navarre?
He wasn't that sort of ruler/noble. I have removed the "II" to avoid confusion.
  • was appointed constable of France on 2 October --> "was appointed Constable of France on 2 October"
Nope. It is used here as a job title, not a personal title.
  • South west vs south-west.
They look good to me. Hyphenated when used adjectively, and not when not. If you have spotted one that isn't, I can't find it.
  • and amounting to about one quarter of France --> "and amounting to about one-quarter of France"
Done.
  • where it was eventually run to ground outside Bressuire Castle Is it me or is this sentence incomplete?
It's you. :) (See these.)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CPA-5 See below. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just when you think that it is nearly done, old Eagle Eyes comes along and picks up all of the bits that you have overlooked. Thanks for that. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Well you know I want to finish this year with more reviews. I'm just bypassed this one and gave you the results of my review. Anyway I think (even though I have the feeling I have missed something) we're done here so I'll let it pass. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2019 (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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Pontvallain/archive1&oldid=954678996"