Talk:Battle of Pontvallain/Archive 1

MILHIST initial assessment

Nicely put together article. Weak point is that it derives solely from a single source, albeit a good one. In order to pass reference and citation, greater variety of sources need to be used. Monstrelet (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Monstrelet  ;) better? — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving pings. Bizarre.} 14:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Easily meets B now and hope it succeeds at GA. Nice work. Monstrelet (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Monstrelet- it was coming across your comment here that started it  :) take care, — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving pings. Bizarre.} 19:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Pontvallain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Alex Shih (talk · contribs) 16:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the submission. I will slowly go over each section of this article thoroughly for the next several days hopefully, before doing the GA criteria checklist. Alex Shih (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Lede

• I took the liberty and tweaked the first paragraph, as "significant" was mentioned in the following paragraph, which makes it slightly redundant. Also, I thought it was contradicting to describe the battle as "a engagement", then quickly explaining that it was actually "two separate engagements". Therefore I have adjusted the phrasing accordingly.
• their 30-year reputation for invincibility in open battle: This claim is properly summarised in the "Legacy" section, but I am concerned that it is somewhat vague. The Hundred Years' War began on 1337, so it has been 33 years. Is there a reason why the claim cannot be more precise? Also, if this battle is significant for being the first time in 33 years that the English forces were defeated in open battle, shouldn't the military strength of the English forces and their previous success be mentioned somewhere in the "Background" section, so that the claim does not appear to be coming out of nowhere?
  • Many thanks for your adjustments, appreciated. I've added a chunk of deeper background on the origins of the wars and previous successes; don't think I can make too many comparisons between the size of the armies used over the years without drifting into the Sea of SYNTH  :) I mean, the numbers are available, but no RS that I can find has made the comparison for us?
    • The lede looks fine to me now, thanks! Perhaps a bit short in comparison to the length of the article, but the important points are all covered. Alex Shih (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

• For the very minimum, strengths and casualties needs to be cited, otherwise there is no way to verify these claims/numbers. For instance, where did the number 5,200 come from? It is mentioned in the body sections that the French raised 4,000 men and 1,200 men, but that paragraph is unreferenced.

@Alex Shih: I've no idea; I didn't write the infobox, only the unimportant bit: the other nine-tenths of the text :) Probably should be removed WP:V. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 10:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Background

• "burning all the country which refused to pay ransom money.": When I think of "ransom money", I think of something or someone is being taken prisoner; if Knolles is simply raiding and sacking towns and villages, wouldn't it be "tributes" instead? Or is there some missing context that the "ransom money" is alluding to?

It's not specifically referring to "ransom money" per se, but rather the act by which the English held the towns to ransom. @Alex Shih there. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I see, I think the act of capture should be mentioned in the same sentence. Instead of just that quote, what about ...capturing many French towns in the process, and burnt them down once they "refused to pay ransom money"? Just a thought. Alex Shih (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

No probs. Have incorporated that, cheers, with a little tightening of the prose.

Thanks! Your writing is much better. Alex Shih (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• The English campaign in the west began achieving some successes: This is very confusing. I am assuming that this campaign is a separate one from Knolles, but where is this "west" referring to? If the English is marching through in the order of Picardy, Champagne, Normandy and Maine, it would appear that this campaign started in the north of France, moving eastward before marching west, a path that is strikingly similar to the one Knolles took (Calais-Reims-Paris-Vendôme). More context and preferably a map is necessary I think.
  • You're dead right, of course—it was a completely different army. Maybe they were clearly doing a pincer movement on a grand scale, although again, I can't find an RS that explicitly terms it such, which is a shame, as it would bring an element of modernity..
    • Indeed. Either way, it looks much more clear now. Alex Shih (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• ... by 1370, ...men such as Chandos and Knolles were summoned from their retirements: I think this section should come earlier, as it provides the context needed before going into the detailed military maneuvers made by Knolles. By the way, since Chandos already died in 1369, this sentence does not make much sense at the moment.
  • Agree, moved and Chandos relegated to a footnote, if not of history than to this page  :)
    • Reads much better now, thanks! Alex Shih (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• However, it is possible that either the King...: This part sounds like speculation. Is it drawn from the Fowler 2001 source? If so, the sentence should be phrased along the lines of "according to Fowler..."
  • It was Sumption, but he's firm enough on it (a copy of the contract exists to indicate their concern) that I can state it rather than mealy-mouth around it—done.
    • I see. The section reads with more clarity now. Alex Shih (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• The remainder, numbering about 4,000 men: This paragraph is not really coherent and does not appear to be relevant to the section "Tactics and strategy", more of a repetition of the "Divisions among the English leadership" section. I would probably remove the entire section.
  • Totally agree, in fact most of it was (bizarrely!) a near-duplicate of stuff from the "Divisions in leadership" section—so anything sourced and relevant has been moved there, the reast boshed.
    • Looks fine now. Alex Shih (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Part two

Background

• As I went through this section previously, I don't find anymore outstanding concerns (I took the liberty and copyedited some minor issues).
  • No problem, many thanks.

Battle of Pontvallain

• The maps look absolutely stunning. License/template checked, good editorial choice using switcher here, the order of battle are making much more sense now.
• desperate fighting: Seems to me only the English was fighting desperately?
  • Well I don't think the French were laying out suntowels and having a BBQ  :) but I know what you mean; I think I've clarified?
• the chronicler: Is this chronicler the contemporary chronicler mentioned earlier in this section, or is it Pierre d'Orgemont? I think a clarification would help.
  • Pierre d'O.—clarified.

Aftermath

• out of fear of admitting the French as well as their countryfolk: Why would they fear admitting their countryfolk? Or is this sentence meant to say "out of fear of admitting the French as well if they open the gate to admit their countryfolk".
  • Indeed the latter; better now?
• ...while the English nobility Knolles because of his low social status: This sentence did not make much sense to me, so I've temporarily removed it.
  • No worries. I reinserted it having looked up the most important word that I'd missed out—"blamed."
• The Sumption reference at this end of this section doesn't flow really well; I've tried to rephrased the sentence, but if you don't mind please take a look again to see if it can be phrased better.
  • Right.

Legacy

• ...in the region: did you mean "in the range"? I am unable to read the source directly, but I am curious about how did they come up with a precise number. In any case, the currency needs to be adjusted for inflation, in which I have done.
  • "In the region"—yes, a synonym for "around," perhaps; I usually use "in the range of" for something witihn two points. Cf. WP:RANGEBLOCK, eh :D
    The exactness of the currency is quite clever actually—well done for picking up on it ;) —and I've hopefully explained why t was actually a much rounder figure than it looks in an explanatory footnote...? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

References/Bibliography

• Extensive list of sources, and every source has been used, properly formatted and every source has been used appropriately; no concerns here.

Checklist

• Serial Number 54129, dear friend, that's all from me for now. I'll be taking my time and add more comments in the coming days, but I think this article would benefit from some major copyediting in the hands of WP:GOCE or somebody else, as I am not a good copyeditor. Interesting article, thank you again. Alex Shih (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Many thanks for your work so far on this Alex  :) looking forwad to Part Deux! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Serial Number 54129, my apologies for the long delay. I've been gone through the article again and didn't find much concerns. Once my latest comments are addressed, I will do another cold reading of the article and run the GA checklist. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Alex Shih, see if what I've donesuits. When you've cooled off of course  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I followed up with some copyedit of typos/formatting/inflation adjustment. Running the checklist tomorrow JST, thanks! Alex Shih (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Alex  :) —whoooah, JST?!—that must be pretty late there by now? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, past midnight now so got to get this over with. Alex Shih (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Pour a nightcap first :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

1. Well written: While ideally the article could use several more rounds of copyediting, the quality at the moment is certainly very well written and is enough to meet the GA standard.
2. Verfiable: While there are quite a few offline sources, they are all to certain extent verifiable. Every paragraph is sourced appropriately with inline citations.
3. Broad in its coverage: The coverage is certainly broad for a battle that lasted around one day; the information on background and aftermath are comprehensive and concise at the same time.
4. Neutrality: The wide variety of sources used in this article is reflected in the neutrality of the writing. Conforms to WP:NPOV standard.
5. Stable: While the article is continuously improved, the content in general is very stable with minimal significant changes in the past one month.
6. Images: After requesting maps for this article, three maps were provided and I believe the article is now comprehensively illustrated. I am passing this article as a Good Article based on the criteria. Thank you for your contributions and your prolonged patience. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Queries

• "what Jonathan Sumption has called "a prescient precaution"" Is there a reason why a statement by Sumption is cited to Fowler?

Snow blindness?! Heh. It was, though, Sumption, Div. Houses p.89.

• "Bertrand du Guesclin had been a prisoner of the English and been ransomed by Charles V of France.[16] Charles promptly appointed du Guesclin constable of France" According to my sources after being ransomed by Charles he led an army in Castille in 1369. So "promptly doesn't really work. And given that it was the fourth time the poor sod was captured by the English and ransomed, I am unsure about the usefulness of that whole sentence. Instead I could paraphrase something from Wagner's "recognizing in the Breton, who was more skilled at leading routiers than fighting pitched battles, the ideal commander for the Fabian tactics the king planned to employ against the English" if that works for you.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Well spotted on those two. Happy to run with your tweaking of du Guesclin. ——SerialNumber54129 10:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

References

To do list

1. Have a read through and flag up anything you're not happy with or which needs further information or work.
2. There are five unused references. Do you want to see if you can find something in each of them to cite the revised text? (It would be nice to keep them.)
3. The three campaign maps: you have the source as "own work", which is fine as far as it goes. However, each then needs a "... based on ... " giving the source (as in citing a source) where you got the information from. This may be a map in a book, or a page range in a book or article.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I think that we are getting close. If you could have a look through per 1 above, I will then give it a final polish and you can look at 2 and 3 at your leisure and then it's nomination time. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the tardiness of the reply, major, I'll be opeing up shortly.

You're not tardy. It's not as if Wikipedia is going anywhere.

"Major"?

• The map of France after the Treaty of Bretaigne; thos eold maps alsways look dusty; I wonder if we could pop over to the good folk at the WP:GRAPHICSLAB and get a modern svg version?

We could. Personally I quite like old maps when they are illustrating old topics. They seem to lend an air of verisimilitude. There is this one - File:Traité de Bretigny-es.svg - in French. You could ask the graphics people to translate it.

• I think we'll raise eyebrows with £353,761,235.95505...not so much the size, but the precision. And It's hard to imagine medieval exchequers as accounting to five decimal places  :)

Ah. The subtle difference between "sigfig=6" and "sigfig=-6" .

• MOS:SANDWICH problem with the image of du Guesclin v. the maps?

It only happens if a reader clicks show all, which is not the default; so I don't think that it's a problem. You do?

• Are we sure the lead's long enough at 18832 chars, and per WP:LEADLENGTH etc?

No. I had deliberately left it until we had got the main article (more or less) agreed. Leads are easy to increase or decrease. Sorry, I should have flagged this up above. I'll have a go at adding to it.

• How about sub-linking Litter to Litter_(vehicle)#In_Europe?

Very clever. Done.

• I haven't removed it because I dn't know if you or I wrote it  :) but any idea what Whether to Derval or Concarneau – one and then to the other – means?!

It was you . I have had a go at tidying it up, but feel free to change.

• Crikey: we mention quite a few historians by name...gonna have to NOFALSETITLE 'em all!

I'll go through and label them.

In Legacy I have labeled May McKisack, but I think that it can be assumed for those immediately after.

• Yes, I'd liket to keep the five sources too. The asiest way would probably be to restore the stiff you removed :p I'll have a look in the meantime.

Nah. There was too much deep background from 30 years before. But I like the look of the sources. There must be some not completely spurious way we can work them in.

Cheers, Gog the Mild. I made a few tweaks, but nothing magor: moving links, punctuation etc mostly. I'll sort out sourcing for the maps too. ——SerialNumber54129 20:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I was lazy because I knew that you would be checking me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Right, sorry about the delay ("Leaves on the line"), but I've gone through it again. Rescued a few of those unused sources by judicious tweaking of sentences; had to get rid of Billaud (sp), as for some reason that was citing Isabella the Shewolf as being unpopular and I have no idea why I needed to reference that to a 19th C. legal tome  :) did big work to the refs; Lingzhi2 would have been very disappointed in me! It goes to show how old the article is though, that I thought that was acceptable a couple of years ago. Also added data to the campaign maps.
  The only thing I'm not sure about is all those pics bunching at the bottom; perhaps we should get rid of one or two of the castles? ——SN54129 19:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hey ho; going back to some of my old GAs with a view to working them up to A class has had me wincing at the referencing several times. And twice closing them up quickly and pretending they were nothing to do with me.
• The two castle pictures look fine to me. They don't bunch on any display I can lay my hands on.
• I am working through my pre-nom checklist, which is likely to throw up random queries. Such as:

• Cite 69. I don't have access to Carlin and Crouch, but are you sure that a work partially titled "1200-1250" covers an event in 1370?

It doesn't: but it does provide the most detailed explanation yet as to how 1 mark = 2/3 £ etc. So in this sentence, sumption provides the figures, Carlin & Crouch the methodology.

• Unless you differ, I am going to change all of the "equivalent to £XXX in 2018" to '2019'.

Seems fair. Is there a way of getting it to update automatically?

• "They eventually reached the relatively safe haven of the ford at Saint-Maur; Calveley's army ... was already within." Something missing here. One can't be within a ford.

Aye, "had already crossed"? I meant, was within S Maur, rather than within the ford.

There may be more to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• "Beyond Saint-Maur was a strong English garrison at the Abbey" Would this read better as 'Beyond the ford was a strong English garrison at Saint-Maur Abbey'?

Yeah!

• Infobox "Strength": it is not usual to put cites in the infobox. I suggest removing. One of the cite 1's needs removing anyway.

Good point. I think we might want to double-check the info box anyway—it's a hangover from the previous version of the article ([1]), and are the figures, commanders correct?

@Serial Number 54129: OK. Bar the points above, it looks good to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Check! ——SN54129 04:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129:

• I have messed around with the infobox. What do you think?
• I never got round to expanding the lead. Easily done, but can you just confirm that you still think it necessary. (I do, but only marginally.)
• Rereading, the first two sentences of the "Battle of Pontvallain" section reads oddly; as if it were the intro to the main battle, somehow displaced. I am happy to give this encounter a little more context, or would you prefer to?

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gog, IB looks better (well, without removing it completely of course). Bizarre I neer noticed Britany was in there! (cf the snow blindness mentioned above perhaps.) We could eave the lead until the actual review—see what people say; if someone says it's a little short, then that's easily addressed, and if they don't, then, well.

I think I see what you mean about that opening sentence: feel free, obviously, to give it a tweak! Or move it completely? ——SN54129 12:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead; agreed. Of course, if any of the reviewers read this page ...

Not a lot I could do with that opening, but the two battle narratives now flow, are internally consistent, sourced, and don't contradict any source I found. At least, I think so ...

So, feel free to light the blue touch paper.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Good stuff! Err. Well, I will if you want; but at some point you must have noticed that I'm the Typhoid Mary of FAC noms  :) ——SN54129 17:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Good point. I am sure that it isn't anything you don't deserve . I on the other hand, have FACs which fly through; you may have noticed that I currently have two up . No doubt because my heart is pure. Shall I do the honours and co-nom you? (Seems odd when you have done all the donkey work.)

I am assuming that when we get queries: prose, grammar and images is me; sources, focus and missing facts/details is you. At least for first response. Yes? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Deal! In other words, I will do all the stuff that can be bollocked for :D Let's dooooo it. Cheers GtM. ——SN54129 18:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

'Tis done sire. Don't whinge. You do all the dirty heavy lifting where no one notices; I furnish the easy, twirly bits that everyone sees. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable division of labour to me.

I had a panic when the talk page disappeared: "Gah, what have I done?" Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Truley Marxian, GtM  :)

Yes, perhaps I got a little carried away with my spring cleaning... ——SN54129 19:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: OK. So far the twirly prose is getting the kicking. Sorry about that. I am working on it. It improves quite a bit, but I obviously need to get it damn near perfect.

@Serial Number 54129:

• A query: "Others made their way to Saint-Saveur." Do you know where in France this is? (Or what happened to them once they arrived?) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• "According to Christopher Allmand, "the days of Crécy and Poitiers were over": Pontvallain "destroyed the reputation the English had for invincibility on the battlefield"."

This reads as if "destroyed the reputation the English had for invincibility on the battlefield" is a quote from Allmand, but it is cited to Gillespie. Do you know which it is from?

References

Gog the Mild (talk)

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)