Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Calais/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2019 [1].

Battle of Calais[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An everyday story of 14th-century folk. Knightly honour and dishonour; bribery and treason; cunning schemes and an incognito king; captivity and ransoms; truces and treachery; revenge and torture. They didn't have Wikipedia in the 14th century, so they had to make their own entertainment.

This passed GA ten months ago, and ACR last month. Since then, Serial Number 54129 generously supplied me with a new source, and I have worked on and expanded the article. All views and opinions as to how it fails to meet the featured article criteria are welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie891[edit]

  • Had Charny written the books on chivalry before the battle? It seems that he wrote his Book of Chivalry after the battle. OUP tells us that Questions concerning the joust, tournaments and war were written to be answered by members of the Order of the Star (France), which, according to our article was founded in 1351, meaning he couldn't have written the book before the battle occurred in 1350. His third book that can be substantiated (here), is Livre Charny with similar suspected origins regarding the Order of the Star,(here). If it turns out he hadn't, it would be inaccurate to say he "was the author of several books on chivalry" because he hadn't written them yet.
Let me dig out my sources and get back to you on that Eddie. A good, insightful question BTW, I like those.
Hi Eddie891. That link to the OUP volume doesn't work for me. Google snippets gives "All three were probably written [for the Company of the Star]". That actually leaves a lot of scope re date. Richard Kaeuper, in his introduction to Elspeth Kennedy's 1996 translation of Book of Chivalry, goes into some detail on p. 22 here. The Whetham volume you refer to states "the Livre Charny is likely to have been written after his voyage to the Levant"; a natural reading of this would be that it was written before the Calais escapade. Harari states that Charny was in "London, were he stayed a prisoner until the summer of 1351, working on his Livre de chevalerie".
So he could have written all three for the Order, although it is far from certain that he did; but if he did, they could have been published as early as 1344. Harari nicely hedges on this with "Charny himself left to posterity three works on chivalry, meant to instruct young knights how they ought to behave and fight." All of that said, I have tweaked the wording to be non-committal on just when he wrote and/or published his works. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see a hat on the top with regards to the various sieges
Why? The siege of 1346-47 is a piece of three years before background; I don't see the relevance. I can offhand think of three potential hats I would consider more relevant, and I wouldn't actually want to include any of them either.
I did that in edit mode, and as about to publish I saw your link. I note that this encounter is given as a "siege". Say what? It was, quite literally, all over before breakfast. A "siege"!? What say I remove it from that list?
  • standardize use between Geoffrey and Geoffroi de Charny
You had me struggling there, until I thought to check the infobox. Done.
  • Perhaps link John II in the [note 2]
Good point. Done. Also added his regnal term.
  • I'm curious whether the title fits the article, given that you have written so much about the aftermath (Charny's revenge). While it does serve two wrap the article up quite nicely, does it really fall under the scope of the "battle of calais", which in the infobox is listed as having been a one day event.
I tend to avoid discussions about titles. They are frequently fractious, and, frankly I am not that bothered. I also understand them not to be covered by the FA criteria :-) . That said I did change it from "Siege of ... " when I started work on it. It has been renamed again since, without benefit of consultation or a move request. If you can think of a more suitable title, feel free to simply rename. Or throw it at the talk page and see what people think.
Done.
  • "Philip VI, with French finances and morale at a low ebb after Crécy, failed to relieve the town, and the starving defenders surrendered on 3 August 1347" perhaps rephrase as "With French... after Crécy, Philip VI failed to relieve the town..." This is because, for me, the subject (Philip) gets lost as the one who failed to relieve the town with such a big section in between the two.
Good spot. Done.
Very tactful. Added.
  • "Negotiations began on 4 September and by the 28th a truce had been agreed.[7] The treaty strongly favoured the English, and confirmed them in possession of all of their territorial conquests.[7] The Truce of Calais was agreed to run for nine months to 7 July 1348, but was extended repeatedly over the years until it was formally set aside in 1355.[" I'd like to see this rephrased as "Negotiations began on 4 September and by the 28th the Truce of Calais was agreed to. The treaty strongly favoured the English, and confirmed them in possession of all of their territorial conquests. The truce was agreed to run for nine months to 7 July 1348, but was extended repeatedly over the years until it was formally set aside in 1355." Unless of course, I have my facts wrong.
I got a bit carried away and made more tweaks than you suggest. See what you think.
Good
  • Perhaps link Billet for those of us less linguistically inclined.
Done. Good catch. I get too close and start assuming understanding.
  • "like a true knight" sounds a bit pov to me, almost like a quote rather than just content.
Ha. In other FACs I have been told, firmly, to put short quotes in Wikipedia's voice rather than faff around with 2 or 3 words. Made more encyclopedic.
  • Is the "King's Council" the same as the 'Great Council' linked above? If so, I'd pick one of the terms and stick with it.
No. The "Great Council" is the Conseil du Roi of the French monarch and is linked to it; the "King's Council" is, very broadly, the English equivalent, the Curia regis, to which it is linked. The common translations of the two terms are, for whatever reasons, different - see the Wikilinks.
  • "Amerigo had previously served the French, and Charny had him approached to betray Calais in exchange for a bribe" I'd like a timeframe (date) if possible.
The several modern RSs all rely on the Chronique de Quatre Premiers Valois which, sadly, does not mention the dates of the French service. I could have a shrewd guess, but it would be OR. I have tracked down a RS mention of when he took up his position in Calais and added the date to the article.
  • "contemporary chroniclers" -- does this refer to only French, or English chroniclers too? If it's only French, mention that.
Both. Now so specified.
  • Standardize between "north east" and "north-east". I only see one usage of north-east ("including most of the nobility of north-east France").
Believe it or not, my understanding is that the current usage is correct, or at least acceptable. I use two words, no hyphen, for normal use; but when using more than one word adjectively they should be hyphenated, as summarised here.
  • "They would be opposed by the 1,200-strong garrison of Calais" maybe "They were opposed by the 1,200-strong garrison of Calais" because they were opposed for the whole time period, but I never really understood the rule between would and were
I am not sure that I can explain the rule of grammar, but "were" would (see) be incorrect. At the time they were gathered, and before they did any confronting, such confronting would be in the future, hence "would". At the point of gathering they weren't opposed by anyone.
  • "would be close to their maximum" perhaps link "Winter solstice"
Ooh. I like that. Done.
Really? Done.
  • "his son for the first instalment of his bribe " He TRADED his son for a bribe? I understand this is true, but just as a point of personal interest, why would someone do that?
[OR alert] Because Charny insisted on it as a guarantee of good behaviour; which was a common practice. And because if he didn't ensure that Charny was fooled, Amerigo was going to personally meet an unpleasant fate at Edward's hands - one reason why I give the full details earlier. Plus Edward had his brother as hostage. Amerigo was out of choices. (I am waiting for the first offer to turn this story into a blockbuster Hollywood movie.)
I thought that I had. Apologies.
  • "adventurers" perhaps a different word would be apt, given that I presume it is in the sense of Soldier of Fortune rather then someone looking for an adventure.
Yes, I am probably reading too many sources that talk in 14th century terms. Struggling for a better word or expression. "Chancers" springs to mind. I have gone with the technically correct expression which I was trying to avoid - routiers. More than happy to replace if someone can think of a better word or expression.
@Eddie891: Many thanks for taking a look at this, and for your insightful comments. Your points above all addressed. Your next serving eagerly awaited. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Eddie891. Your points above all addressed. Some with comments as to why I am not going with your suggestion. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN54129[edit]

Suggest just going with "mercenary", perhaps; after all, our article calls 'em that three words in. Incidentally, talking of Charny's adventures, you link to our HDQ article, but that's with reference to the Fench doing it. Ironically, the article makes no mention of it existing in France at all. I know it was occasionally used (when they suffered ennui with les joues des wheel breaking  :) but atm it's rather an eggy link. ——SerialNumber54129 18:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't mercenaries. They were freelance English soldiers, known at the time as routiers. (I decline to take responsibility for the faulty Wikipedia article. The Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years' War manages an extended discussion without mentioning "mercenaries". Its article on routiers is temporarily hosted here.) I'm switching to "free-lancing English soldiers". (Check the origin of "freelance" and what "lance" meant in the 14th century.)
HDQ. Fair point, especially as the French economy version was only DQ, so the link is doubly misleading. Delinked. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for leaving this hanging; I never had much more to say, but the minor prose points that I had in mind have been attended to (mainly via Maury below, as it goes), and I also took the liberty of assessing a few refs per the sourcing issue raised by Vanamonde93. Disclaimer: I only checked a few of those from the Wheatham source (mentioned above as having sent to GtM in the first place (which I hope isn't some kind of CoI!)) but they were fine. Time to sup. ——SerialNumber54129 16:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • from Calais: 1,500 men-at-arms, including most Link men-at-arms here and unlink the second mentioned.

That's it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Thanks. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks great, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sup GtM. Just passing through, but for the non-specialists out here, how about clarifying what a Mark (currency) is? Maybe, stick it in a footnote? Couldn't resist it :p but, on a serious note, it's probably worth a mention... ——SerialNumber54129 17:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Ha, touché. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • I would suggest a ref for note 2
You may. Seemed to me not to be required under the WP:WHYCITE criteria, but done.
  • (Not a source comment) I'm not a big fan of the phrase "newly acquired English mistress". I get that it's possibly the language used in the source, and is language that would be used facetiously in common conversation, but it verges on objectification. Can you rephrase?
The source says "living a joyful life with". This was the 14th century: objectification! I would want to be cautious of giving a reader the impression that men of the period imputed volition to women. But a sensible point; I have deleted "newly acquired". That do?
Yes, this is fine.
  • The level of detail in source locations varies somewhat; you use sub-national regions in some places and not others.
Yes. Where it seems reasonable to assume that even a learned reader would recognise the bare town/city under location – as they might with London, New York, Oxford, Philadelphia – then I leave it unadorned. Adding UK, N.Y., Oxon etc seems pointless. I add the next geographical level up so as to give a hint as to which Woodbridge or Ware is meant when it could reasonably need disambiguating. It is a not uncommon practice. (In a recent FAC I was picked up by a frequent source reviewer for inadvertently missing a "Suffolk", and again for equally inadvertently inserting "UK" instead of "Suffolk", as the next level.)
Alright, I won't argue; it seems a bit odd to me, is all. I've made some minor changes, I trust that you're okay with them.
  • Unless you're using an edited volume/encyclopedia, you don't need page-ranges in the sources section; I'm looking at the Harari source; check for others
I realise that I don't need them; are you saying that I shouldn't have them? If so, then obviously I will remove them, but I am always loath to remove information which may be useful, even if not required by policy.
Well, it's a matter of consistency, right? It's rare that we use an entire book; it's always ranges; so providing the range for only one looks odd. It's a minor point, though.
  • Google scholar has A Knight's Own Book of Chivalry as being edited by "De Charny, Geoffroi", where you have "Charny, Geoffroi de". Which is correct?
Harari's index has "Charny, Geoffroi de" (p. 206). His bibliography has "Geoffroy de Charny", but under "Ch" in alphabetical order (p. 198. Sumption's bibliography has "Charny, Geoffroy de" (p. 643). Talking to a university lecturer in French Language (personal acquaintance) I was told that either "De Charny, Geoffroi" or "Charny, Geoffroi de" is acceptable, so long as one is consistent; and always to list it under "C". (She didn't like Harari's second usage, and his inconsistency even less.) So my preference is to leave it as is.
  • "(published 15 September 2005)" in Prestwich 2005 seems extraneous; also, if it's an edited volume, the title of the specific chapter and it's page range would be useful.
Quite right, Apologies, I have no idea how that crept in.
It's not.
I inherited the reference and clearly didn't review it. (I dislike it when other editors lazily leave that to me as a reviewer - sorry.) I have removed the over detailed date (I had already added 2005, but not checked to see that it wasn't over-riding the prior, over detailed one), removed the incorrect suggestion that it was edited by Roberts, who died two years before it was published, and matched the use of hyphens in the ISBN to the other books cited.
  • A jstor link, an OCLC, and a DOI in a single ref is overkill, surely? I'd omit the OCLC
Removed.
  • I'm very confused by Rogers 2004; is it a journal, or an edited volume? If the former, why mention the editors? If it's the latter, then the chapter title should be in quotes (right)?
It's an edited volume, called a journal. Corrected. I cut and pasted the source from my standard references page, where it is correct, so it must be an over-enthusiastic bot. I shall watch for it.
  • Not a requirement, but I'd suggest standardizing the format you use in the edit-window.
Er, what's an "edit-window"?
The screen that we edit in, as opposed to the one we read (unless you're using visual editor). It's a triviality, I've taken care of it.
  • ISBN hyphenation isn't very consistent
It is now. At ACR source review eight weeks ago I got "One ISBN has more than one hyphen in it.", which I corrected. So I am baffled as to where the additional hyphens have come from.
  • So, I spotchecked footnote six. Perhaps I'm missing some subtleties here, but isn't he essentially saying that Calais was smaller than a few other captured towns during the first 30 years? Specifically, Rennes? Perhaps the other source addresses this?
I don't have access to Rogers at the moment. Sumption flat out says "In particular no large town (except Calais) was successfully besieged" (p. 392 as I cite - let me know if you would like me to email you a copy of the page), so I don't need Rogers. Purely from memory, I think that an earlier version of the article digressed a bit on the general difficulty of capturing towns by siege, which Sumption goes on about with Rennes as a specific example; I guess that I added Rogers to support this, then didn't remove it when the sentence was slimmed down.
  • I'm similarly struggling to find "The truce did not stop the ongoing naval clashes between the two countries, nor the small-scale fighting in Gascony and Brittany." I even searched the document for single words, and came up with nothing...
No, no; it won't be in there. I hate it when I screw up my referencing, much less when it gets as far FAC!! It looks as if I blindly copied it over from the last two sentences of Truce of Calais, which I greatly expanded. There Rogers p. 102 does support the last sentence, which it appends, but not the penultimate one, which is, it seems, uncited. I wrote it, and won't have made it up, so give me a chance to wade through 20 or 30 texts to come up with support. (I am now kicking myself for my sloppiness.) I will get back to you.
Update. Happily this was in the first place I looked - , under "Calais, Truce of (1347)" (p. 74). Relevant paragraph:

However, neither truce nor plague ended the fighting in the southwest, where local garrison commanders attacked each other and recently discharged English troops, now turned to brigandage, seized French strongholds (see ROUTIERS). Angered by these losses, the French repudiated the truce in August 1349, and the war in Gascony resumed its course. On 13 June 1350, the two governments renewed the truce until August 1351. But when Philip died on 22 August 1350, the new French king, JOHN II, repudiated his father’s agreement, and war resumed in the southwest, with the Battle of SAINTES occurring in April 1351. At sea, the truce was never effective, and the English engaged a Castilian fleet at the Battle of WINCHELSEA in late August 1350. In Brittany, the fighting also continued, neither Crown being able to effectively control its clients in the BRETON CIVIL WAR.

Yes, this looks fine now.
  • I've seen your work before, and it's excellent, so I'm going to put this down to either ignorance on my part, or some sort of snafu while copying over sources from other articles; but in any case, I think these need to be resolved, and a couple more spotchecks after that when I have more time.
Well, obviously. I will be checking every single source myself regardless. This is hideously embarrassing. You are coming across as quite sympathetic, which is more than I am being to myself.
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde (Talk) 00:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Ha! As I typed your name I realised that you write the excellent LeGuin articles. (I assessed a GAN of yours 15 months ago.) No wonder you are not impressed by the above. Your points above addressed. Not, on the whole, very satisfactorily. Many thanks for picking this up, and even more thanks for preventing evidence of my ineptitude being passed off as "exemplify[ing] Wikipedia's very best work". I shall ping you when I have checked all 58 cites. (Unless there is more slop, in which case I may have to take the honorable course.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: OK. I have checked the citations to sources which I have ready access to, and discovered another case where I seem to have gone doolally. Now, I hope, in the shape it should have been before I nominated it. Do let me know if you would like anything emailing to assist in your spot checks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say I've seen this, and I'll try to get around to it later today. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No rush. Take your time. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 has just generously sent me yet another source - Wheatham. Largely it covers the same ground, but adds a couple of snippets of information which I think usefully add to the article; so I have included them. Just a heads up that there is now an additional source and a couple of additional cites. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked footnote 24; no problems; source says 3d per day, which AFAIK (the British currency system is impossible) is a pound in 80 days, so approximately 3 months.
The British currency system has since been rationalised. I am guessing then that you don't live in a part of the world where weight is measured in multiples of 16 and 14? ;-)
I live...all over. Unfortunately, I do often have to deal with multiples of 14 when doing my shopping. Vanamonde (Talk)
  • Checked footnote 1, the part I can access bears out the essence of the sentence
  • Checked footnote 40; the content checks out; I assume "lord de la waae" in the source is the same as "Lord de la Warr" in the text because of some strange spelling convention?
It's actually a typo in the source! This was discussed at ACR.
Okay, not a concern.
  • Re: footnote 63; there is an episode in Froissart that corresponds to the text, but unless I'm misreading something, occurs on page 200, not 194-195.
Groan. Yes. (Everything else abour Aymery is on 194-5, but not that snippet.)
  • Checked 17b. Author makes a similar point to the text, but talks only of greed, not of willingness to be a traitor; is it in the other source?
"17b"? I don't think that you mean cite 17; from context it will be either 18 or 20[?] Cite 20 has "Reasoning that he was a foreign mercenary who served only for money and whose loyalty was not buttressed either by long-term ties of vassalage or by the burgeoning ties of nationalism, Charny assumed that he could be bought with a large enough sum of money." Does this address your concern?
More or less; but how about simply saying "as a mercenary" rather than "as a commoner"? In reading the two passages, that descriptor seems more relevant to me...Also, the footnote numbering appears to have shifted, but FWIW I'm referring to the numbers as they were here.
OK. I see where you are coming from. In which case I am adding Kaeuper (2013) p. 8; here and changing "a commoner" to a man of low status. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that looks alright.
  • Unless I'm missing something, 32a should point to page 10 rather than 11; or is it different in the online edition?
I started to explain why it should be page 11, then realised that I was misreading. You are correct. Thank you. Changed to page 10.
  • 32c looks fine
  • 32d and 32e cover parts of the content in question; is the rest in the other sources?
Yes. If you send me an email, I'll photograph the two pages of Sumption and send them to you to check.
Sure.
  • Re: footnote 35; it's essentially fine, but my reading of that page is that the legalistic defence had little to do with whether the charges were accurate; I don't see him saying "because there was a detailed defence, the charges had merit". Am I wrong? It's a subtle point, not one that I'd fail something over.
Now 36b? I am relying on "Had Charny violated ... reputation as a knight", which seems to me to support "The detailed defences of Charny's actions later published suggest that the charges had merit by the standards of the time"
Hmmm...substantively okay I think.
  • I think you should add a page number for ref 16.
Well yes. *scratches head* Done.
  • Thanks for your kind words about my work. I do recall the review; Old Music and the Slave Women, wasn't it? In that topic, and elsewhere, I've been in a similar position as you are here, wherein I'm copying material, particularly background material, between articles, modifying it, and then having to double check to see if the refs still work. So I know the mistakes are easy to make. I am a stickler for verifiability, though, so I'll come back to check the other online refs tomorrow. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the effort you are putting into this. PS the source of the over detailed date in Prestwich over-riding mine, and of at least one of the inconsistent ISBNs, was this edit by Aforst1, which I overlooked. @Aforst1:, as I have mentioned before, if you see a way to improve an article which is at FAC it is best to discuss it first on the review page, ie this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resuming, striking previous resolved comments (and non-concerns, for visual clarity). Working from this revision now. So, looking at 28 and 34; both seem to be saying "most" of the French fled, while you have it as "half"; a minor discrepancy, but one worth fixing.
Drat. Sumption states "less than half" remained on the first line of page 62, but I end the cite at page 61. Harari says "half" and I ended up not citing him. Article tweaked to reflect the consensus of the sources.
  • It's quite likely there's an explanation for this, but both the de Charny volumes seem to suggest that the throwing-stone-at-bridge episode was invented?
Burne states it as a fact. I suppose it depends on which parts of the various chroniclers accounts the modern sources shoes to believe. I do flag up in a footnote that there are contradictory accounts. Rather than give due weight to the various RSs, which is going to unnecessarily interrupt things for a reader, I have fudged it. I now follow Sumption, who is not contradicted by either of the other sources I cite, nor by either of the other two detailed modern accounts that I am aware of.
  • Looking again at the paragraph beginning "With a cry of", there's a few details I'm not seeing...K&K's "a sharp fight ensued" is perhaps good enough for "held off the initial English attack", but not quite for "even pushed it back". That the Black Prince was specifically leading his household knights is also probably elsewhere in the source.
I suspect that much of this is due to me lazily grouping the cites towards the end of the paragraph. (I was picked up for this in my previous FAC. It was a bit of an experiment and it clearly isn't working.) So I have now cited almost sentence by sentence, and included all five sources. I have also removed anything which is directly contradicted, or openly doubted, by any of the other sources. This is, to an extent, levelling down, but it leaves, I think, a coherent and reasonably complete account.
  • In the latter half; neither the bits about darkness, nor about the Calais garrison itself, can I find in the source. Am I missing something?
Burne, p 184, "in the dead of night"; but removed as above as being contradicted by other sources. Harari, p. 120, ebook; I have sent a photo of the relevant bit on the screen, which I think is readable.
@Vanamonde93: Done, I think. It's getting late, so I will check properly in the morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resuming; striking previous as resolved or no longer relevant. Paragraph two of "Battle" now looks fine to me. In paragraph three; I'm not seeing "along with a greater but unrecorded number of lesser-ranked Frenchmen" in Sumption 62
  • I happen to have access to the two King sources. I'm not seeing the specific reference to Calais, as in, material supporting "Casualties among the socially inferior French infantry were not recorded"; only to the general phenomenon...
  • The rest of the paragraph checks out; AGF on 40 and 46, which I'm not able to see (your picture of Harari's page is readable but only covers half the page)
  • The content sourced to 48, I personally am seeing on age 107, not 106; also, not seeing a mention of liege lords taking a share...

I'm going to be honest with you, Gog the Mild; I'm very close to opposing at this point. I'm not, yet, because I think it's still something you can fix. I've come across a variety of verifiability issues over the years; people misusing sources to push a POV; people without the competence to see that the content they are writing is different from what the source says; and people so keen to get a shiny star that they're cutting corners. I think the issue here is different, and it's simply that you've gotten too close to the material; you're missing things because they're obvious to you, but not to me. I say this because it's not the crucial details that are unsupported, but the minor ones. What I would recommend at this point is stepping away from the article for a day or two, and then coming at it with fresh eyes. If you want me to return to perform further checks, I'm happy to do so. Also, as an aside, unrelated to verifiability as such; I see that in a few places you've reduced the level of detail to what is common to multiple sources. While this is not a bad approach, I wonder if you could use more in-text attribution to provide some more interesting detail that perhaps not all historians agree on. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, Vanamonde, where are we at with this now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: When I last reviewed things, I wasn't satisfied that the article met 1c (verifiability). I am aware that I am somewhat more demanding in this respect than other editors, because I genuinely do believe all the information in an article must be verifiable. I can't tell from the history whether Gog has done the revamping I suggested. If so, I'm happy to take another look if you would like me to. If not, I think you need to decide if the above objections are weighty enough to keep this from FA status. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for me to get back to it Ian. I’ll get onto it tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for prompt responses guys -- happy to give this more time. Cheers, 23:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Vanamonde. I think that you are on the money with your comments above, or close enough. This is one which I never expected to take to FA when I first worked on it, and my subsequent changes have, as you suggest, been hampered by me not having been able to step back enough. Your requirements have been tough, but entirely fair and constructive. I have given it a good long break, and am now starting to re-cite it from scratch. With hindsight, going for the lowest common denominator among sources was not always the best approach - I know this, and am quite happy to flag up a variety of views in my better articles. That said, I want to keep the changes to the text to a minimum, out of fairness to the reviewers who have already signed off on the text. I'll see what I can do, and if it doesn't make the grade, well, so it goes. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Vanamonde. Thank you for your considerable patience on this. I have done what I can, and it is, I think, about as nailed down as I can make it. The diff of my cumulative changes are here. I would be grateful if you could have yet another look over the article. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I have been occupied in RL. I am going to continue being horribly busy for a while, but I will do my best to get to this by the weekend at the latest. If I haven't done anything by next week, feel free to remind me. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: No worries. Goodness knows I took long enough to get back to you. So long as Ian is happy, take your time. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break[edit]

Okay, resuming, much belated. What I'm going to do is to start completely afresh, and to check citations that I have access to (whether via the pages you've sent me or some other means). If I find any problems there, we can see where that leaves us.

  • Spotchecked 1. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 2-3-4. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 8. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 9; no access to 10 at the moment; 9 supports most of what is sourced to those two.
  • Spotchecked 14; Issues are minor, but; I cannot see the 4th September date in the source, which only says "early September". Also Wagner and Sumption give contradictory ending dates for the truce; this isn't an error on your part, obviously, but I do wonder if a footnote mentioning this is warranted.
I can't track down where I picked up 4 September from. I have not looked too hard as it is not important. Text changed to reflect the cite (Sumption).
End date: Wagner cites secondary sources (including Sumption (1999)), Sumption cites the original agreement. There are other reasons for trusting Sumption, although a bit subjective, which I could go into if you wish. So I believe that 7 July is correct, and that the cite to Sumption, who uses this date, can stand without further explanation. Is that OK by you? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: 14, that sounds perfectly reasonable. Back for the rest later. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecked 15. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 16. No issues; supports entirety of what is sourced to 16-17.

Resuming. Belated again, apologies all around. I had a major deadline in RL yesterday.

No worries. Things happen.
  • Spotchecked 19; looks fine; relevant page numbers include 21 in the google books edition I am consulting, which is different from the edition in the article.
Definitely page 20 in my 1999 paperback edition. Right at the top. Rechecking this, I would agree that 19b is more p 21 than 20, so have changed it to pp 20-21. (But not 19a.)
  • Spotchecked 21, no issues.
  • Skipping 22-25, because it's just the name
  • Spotchecked 26, no issues.
  • Sumption has a piece about the galley master on page 60; I cannot access 23; and there's another ref anyway, so no objections from me, but might be worth double-checking page numbers.
If this is relating to cite 24, then it is correct in that Sumption refers to galley master Aimeric on both page 23 and page 60.
  • Spotchecked 29; not seeing anything about King John on page 70...It's a footnote, maybe you missed it in your second pass?
Gah! I have referred to Sumption 1990, not 1999! There is stuff on page 70 of Sumption 1999 which is what I meant to refer to. Relooking, it would be better to cite pp. 70-71. However, it would be much easier to simply refer to the first page of John's entry in Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War, so I have.
  • Spotchecked 30; no issues necessarily; but a broader page range would solidify the claim that Charny was a senior and well-respected knight.
Done. I have added a different source as well. Sumption (1990) p. 485 "that famous paladin and authority on matters of chivalry". He also refers to Charny assisting John in SW France on the same page. OK, I have now cited "Geoffrey de Charny was a senior and well-respected Burgundian knight in French service." to, just, Sumption 1999, p.12. As usual, let me know if you would like a copy. The existing cite and Sumption 1990 support the next sentence. (And the first, as it happens.) (Or am I overcomplicating things?)
  • (Not a source comment) That paragraph describes Charny as a "senior" knight twice. Minor point, thought I'd note it in passing. No response required.
True. Different contexts. I would want to stand by it.
  • I don't have access to 31 or 32 at the moment, but looking at the page ranges I wonder if they are both supposed to refer to the same book
Yes, they are. See my comment against cite 29 for similar sloppiness. (But the other way.) Corrected.
  • Spotchecked 16-34; no issues.
  • Spotchecked 38. Two points; "including most of the nobility of north-east France" isn't in the source, unless I'm missing something; and I'd recommend including page 22, because a sentence spills over onto it. What the source does have is something about the commanders of that area; which you might know to be equivalent to the nobility, but isn't quite, is it?
Page 22 added.
Well, yes, in 14th-century France noble and military commander were entirely interchangeable; you couldn't be one and not the other. There are countless scholarly papers establishing this. I would consider it straight-forward paraphrasing. But I wouldn't want to get hung up on it. Would "senior military figures" work instead of "nobility"?
I would much prefer "senior military figures", yes. The source is quite adequate for that. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Spotchecked the ref for footnote 5. I suspect you have a page number problem here, because you've used that page earlier; in any case I cannot see the date review on page 11.
Umm. Are you definitely looking at the 1996 edition? The introduction, by the same person, Kaeuper, is significantly different from the 2013 version.
Yeah, I was looking at the 2013 version. No worries, then. I cannot check every last citation, so I will keep going with the ones I have access to, and once I'm done let's see where we're at. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is very confusing. One expects a later edition of a book, with an introduction by the same person, to be (more or less) the same. It is identical in most places, but tripped me several times as the later version has several sections removed. There are reasons, but still ... Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Thanks for taking the time and trouble to work through this. Your points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecked 48. Supports the substance of what is sourced to 48-49.
  • Spotchecked 47d. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 56-57. It's possible there's some issues with numbering; I have access to the articles, but I can't tell if pagination is the same as your edition; that said, on the pages you mention, I see no mention of the battle of Calais. Those sources are fine for a general statement about killing of soldiers from lower social strata.
Possibly. My versions were sent to me direct by Andy King, but he said that the page numbering should match the original publication. They specifically refer to this war, but, as you note, do not mention the Battle of Calais. Which is why I have been rather vague in how I have phrased things in the article which are cited to this.
Okay; so nobody's commenting on this battle, but the general phenomenon is well-known enough that for completeness you would need to include it? I would suggest the following: "Casualties among the socially inferior French infantry were not recorded. In the battles of the time, captured soldiers ["from lower social strata", or equivalent] were usually killed on the spot: partly from etc.". Does that work? It avoids speculating about the specific battle. If you wanted to be truly complete, you could add a footnote listing the authors of your major sources, and saying that they do not list those casualties; but that's optional as far as I am concerned. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. How about: "As was common, none of the contemporary sources record the number of casualties among the socially inferior French infantry. In the battles of the time, non-knightly captives were usually killed on the spot: partly from ... "?
Yes, that works fine. I would include a citation to your contemporary source (Froisart, right?) Vanamonde (Talk) 22:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
New sections on sources opened below. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecked 59. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 54d. Minor point, but I can't see "weighed down by their armor" in the source.
No. I think that I drew that from Harari "but the marshy terrain hampered them. As the heavily armed knights and men-at-arms fought along the narrow causeways" and then didn't cite him. Relooking the link is weak, so I have taken that bit out.
  • Spotchecked 54e. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 60. The ransoming process is covered, but I'm not seeing the bit about a share going to the liege lord. This is the same source where I maybe have page number issues, so I'm going to ask you to point me to the piece.
I seem to have lost my e-copy of "A Great Misfortune ... " Let me hunt through the rest of my drives. If I have to, I'll ask Andy for another copy. No, I can't find it. I'll remove the liege lord bit until I can get hold of a copy and discuss it with you.
  • Spotchecked 62. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 65. No issues, though a nitpicker might point to a subtle difference between "taunted" and "reproved".
Happy to change it. I think that an earlier version had "lectured". (Though the words put in Edward's mouth strike me as a taunt.)
  • Spotchecked 54f. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 69. It makes it clear that Charny's legacy is debated, but not seeing "in the 19th century", unless you're inferring that from one of the footnotes?
Umm. " ... one of the prominent nineteenth-century editors of T provides a legalistic defence. [Brief outline of it.] This argument may have some force, but of course the issue transcends legal niceties to touch Charny's general reputation as a knight." (Seems to me that they are still arguing it in the 21st century.)
<smacks forehead> Missed the obvious. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecked 54g. This is really nitpicky, but "and should pass on Edward III's comments to Charny" isn't in the source that I can see; it's just talking about the actual course of events.
OK. I can see that it depends on one's interpretation of "the disaster that had befallen his men". In context I took it to include the events of dining with the king - gossip of the highest order; but also the reproving of the keeper of the Oriflamme; a significant factor in the propaganda war. But I take your point, the source doesn't specifically state this. Similarly Harari has " report the events to his king" and you could quite reasonably argue that "events" don't specifically include those of the evening; even with the context in the next paragraph of "Edward knew that theatre was the better half of politics, and he was an unsurpassed master in the performative arts of kingship" That wasn't how I read it, but my reading doesn't seem as obvious now as it did when I wrote the cites.
I can see your point, and it's not an unreasonable reading; but I would prefer that bit be trimmed.
Trimmed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecked 54h-i-j-k. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 71. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 73. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 76; no major issues; I might drop the "and propaganda".
  • Spotchecked 83a-b-c-d-e. No issues.
  • (Not a source comment): "but in spite of fighting described as savage" you are missing something here, possible a comma after "fighting".
I don't think so. Putting a comma after "fighting" unnecessarily breaks the flow of the clause IMO. But you are the reviewer.
On re-reading, it's clearly a preference issue. Not a sticking point.
Thanks.
  • Spotchecked 84. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 88. Partially supports content sourced to 82-87-88, so no issues.

Okay, I've worked my way through the whole article, and checked everything I have easy access to, with the exception of Harari, which Serial Number 54129 kindly provided me with during this process. I will wait for you to respond to these points above, but based on this, I'm not sure that I need to do more than a handful of checks from Harari; most of the issues have been fixed, and those that remain are minor at best with perhaps one exception. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for going so thoroughly through that lot. (SN also let me have Harari. While the article was in the middle of ACR. I think my scramble to include him is one of the reasons the citing became a mess. But now I am making hand-waving excuses) I am content with your various copy edits - thanks. I have started into addressing your comments. I have hit a couple of snags and it is late here; I am out tomorrow, but will try to finish my response tomorrow evening. If not, Monday. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After due consideration, I think the sourcing is up to FA standards, thanks in large part to the work Gog the Mild put in during the FAC. @Ian Rose: As far as I'm concerned, there's no more obstacles to promotion. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources[edit]

"I would include a citation to your contemporary source (Froisart, right?)"

Ah, if only it were simple. The first modern source I turned to, Harari, says that they have used the following contemporary or near-contemporary sources:

Avesbury, De gestis mirabilibus, pp. 406–10; Le Bel, Chronique, 2 : 173–82; Baker, Chronicon, pp. 103–7; Chronique Normande, pp. 91–2, 104; Chronographia Regum Francorum, 2 : 247–54; Muisit, Chronique et Annales, pp. 259–63; Froissart, Œuvres, ed. Lettenhove, 5 : 148–9, 220–51, 271–4; Rymer, Foedera, vol. 3, part 1, pp. 1–51; Journaux du trésor de Philippe VI, pp. 799, 838–9; Lescot, Chronique, pp. 85, 91; Chronique des quatre premiers Valois, pp. 29–30; Prince noir, lines 410–55, ed. Michel, pp. 27–9; Chronicon Angliae, pp. 27–8; Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, 1 : 273–4; Lettres de rois, 2 : 78–101.

Not a one makes any mention of non-knightly casualties.

Each of these brings its own issues. To take the one you mention, and simplifying horribly, Froissart published three different sets of chronicles over a fifty year period which were (very) frequently mutually contradictory. When I wrote Battle of Sluys I came across this my a modern expert: "There are three main redactions of Froissart's Chroniques, and all three differ ... in their conclusions" (p 233 of this). Let us not even consider that for much of this period he was employed by Edward III's wife; a slight COI.

On battle casualties generally from this period you nay find this - Battle of Crécy#Casualties - from an earlier FA interesting. A much better documented battle - several accounts by participants were written the next day - but I was unable to find any modern scholar willing to even estimate the non-knightly French losses. A single brave soul from 65 years ago suggests 10,000, then qualifies it as "a pure guess".

@Vanamonde93: The revised sentence has been inserted and I have probably gone on a bit too much about my reluctance to ascribe the lack of information directly to a contemporary source. Let me know what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Oh dear, I see what you mean. You could just add a footnote saying "contemporary records cited by Harari do not list French casualties", and cite Harari. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Good thinking. I have gone with a variant of this. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • You might look for ways to shorten the first sentence.
Done. (I usually get the opposite complaint.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If someone else wants it longer, that's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, I'm short on sleep, so this might not be my best effort. I seem to be doing okay. But maybe I'm misjudging it, because I'm short on sleep.
Hi Dank. You're repeating yourself. Is that because you're short on sleep?
I ruined the joke by using the wrong punctuation. Proof once again that punctuation is important, and that everyone needs a copyeditor. - Dank (push to talk) 00:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re this, it seems to me that if something has to be taken out - I am not persuaded that it has, but still - then it should be the thing which had not yet happened. The thing which had happened and all participants were aware of (well cited in the main article I think, but I can bring more. Bear in mind that Charny had been the standard bearer of France's sacred banner for several tears before 1350.) is surely what influence behaviour and therefore is the one to remain in the lead? (If, indeed, one has to go.)
Also, the lead is now arguably wrong. There is not a solid scholarly consensus on when each of the three books was written; shared in (what was later seen as) incomplete form; or "formally" published. However, what I would consider the most reliable source on this flat out states that one of the three was fully written and formally published several years before the events in this article.
Which, of course, is not to argue that there is not scope to tweak the wording around these issues. Would you like me to have a go at tightening things up around them, in both the lead and the main article, and see what you (and Eddie891) think? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that important compared to other parts of a FAC review. My thinking was (and this is only true in general ... it may not apply here, as you point out): if there's some reason to condense (in this case, the introductory phrase felt too long to me), and if you've got a choice of two things to keep, and one of them was something that actually happened, and the other was what some people thought, it often works better (for various reasons) to keep the thing that actually happened (if it also successfully conveys the general point, for a perceptive reader) and lose the opinion. (As you can see, I'm rather hypocritical about long sentences. Do as I say, not as I do.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to think on't this one, rather than shoot from the hip.
  • "in 1340 Edward III had to": Consider "in 1340 Edward III had had to", or similar. (But I get that "had had" sounds awkward to some.)
Corrected. (Really? I don't see why.) Nice spot.
  • Not taking a position on "approximately £3,700,000 in 2019 terms". I haven't been keeping up, and sometimes Wikipedians make strange decisions, but I'm doubtful, based on reactions of economists to statements like these in previous years. - Dank (push to talk) 00:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "north-east": sometimes you hyphenate these directions, sometimes not. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. See comment above when Eddie points out the same thing. I may equally well refer to both "an off-site location" and "the location is off site" in one article. It may appear inconsistent ("off site" and "off-site"), but whoever has ever argued that the English language is consistent?
  • "his further fate": His, or his son's? If his son's, I'd probably start the sentence with "The further fate of his hostaged son, who ...".
Tweaked, along the lines you suggest.
Thanks Dank. Your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ... check my last two edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Maury[edit]

I am finding the prose of this article a bit difficult to read, but perhaps I can help with that. I will do a more thorough read at some point, but for now:

  • "Edward III landed with an army in northern Normandy in July 1346. His army" - two "army"ies close together. Why not just "He" for the second instance, or "He took his forces on a..."?
Good point. Done.
  • "a devastating chevauchée, a large-scale raid, through Normandy, including the capture and sack of Caen, and to the gates of Paris." - I see what you are trying to say, but it is confusing to read. Perhaps split it, "He... Normandy. This included... Paris".
Shortened.
  • "On 26 August the French army of Philip VI was defeated with heavy loss at the Battle of Crécy." - in the previous sentence he was outside the gates of Paris, how did me magically end up in northern France? IIRC from the Crécy article, he was on his way to Calais when this battle took place? If so, it would seem the mention of this battle would be better positioned in the description of why he headed to Calais, perhaps as the sentence before "Edward's army laid siege to the port"
Well, he was on his way to Crotoy to rendezvous with his fleet, which didn't show, and maybe move on to Flanders to join a Flemish army there, but it had given up. He turned to fight at Crecy anyway. There is debate as to whether he had an eye on Calais prior to Crecy, and if so, to what extent. I have inserted a linking phrase and reworded. See what you think.
  • "in 1340 Edward III had had to fight a French fleet" - remove one of the "had"s. Note the comment below, I think this statement should be moved down a bit.
Removing one of the hads would make it grammatically incorrect. IMO and according to Dank, see above. Possibly the pair of you could come to a consensus over this?
  • "defended by land. Edward's army" - para break here.
Done.
  • "it being all but impossible to land a significant force other than at a friendly port" - this is where the 1340 landing should be mentioned. However, it is a problem that this "all but impossible" had just been done by the very army we are discussing! I don't doubt the accuracy of the statement, but I think the more recent landing has temporal precedence in this case, and not mentioning it seems misleading. Perhaps end the sentence at port and then "One of the few examples of an unopposed landing had launched the current chevauchée, previously, in 1340..."
I see what you mean. Tweaked accordingly. Is that better?
  • " In 1347, when the French army" - another confusing sentence. Perhaps "In 1347, the French army had approached Calais in an attempt to relieve it, but found the English so strongly entrenched that to attack them was hopeless. Charny was one of the four senior knights sent by Philip VI to formally challenge Edward III in an attempt to bring his army out and fight in the open field."
Done.
  • "and Charny had him approached to betray Calais" - "had him approached"... perhaps another way to say this?
I have changed "Charny had him approached to betray Calais" to 'Charny arranged for him to be approached with a view to betraying Calais'. Does that address your concern?
  • "vouchsafe " - guarantee?
Done.
  • "Charny had meanwhile gathered" - "By that point, Charny had gathered..."
Done.
  • "Calais: 1,500 men-at-arms" - "Calais. The force consisted of 1,500..."
Done, with a slght tweak.
  • "Charny needed his large force in order to prevent being repulsed from the town once inside it by the strong garrison" - "Charny needed a large force to prevent being repulsed by the strong garrison once he entered the town."
Done.
  • "strong garrison, but he could not ...town." make this two sentences, the first as above and then "The gate controlled by Amerigo was too narrow t be used by such a large force, having been built only to provide easy access to the harbour by ship's crews."
Done.
  • "members could armour and arm themselves and assemble" - the later would seem to imply the former, so just "could assemble"? No strong opinion here.
I would much prefer to keep "armour and arm themselves"; if hard pressed I could lose "and assemble".
  • "themselves and assemble.[32] The leader of the group " - para break
Done.
  • "Charny's force fled.[39][40] He hastily organised the balance into" - "...Charny's force fled. Charny hastily organized his remaining troops for a defensive fight."
Done.
  • "When the Black Prince attacked, the French, who, even allowing for their deserters, still outnumbered the English, broke." - "Charney's force, even allowing for deserters, still outnumbered the English, but broke when the Black Prince's force attacked." And I'm not sure the "even allowing" is needed as that seems obvious from the context?
Done, and the deserters bit removed.
  • "Charny, with a serious head wound, Eustace " - which one had the head wound?
Good spot. Repunctuated to make clear.
  • "rather than fight.[53] The detailed" - para break
Done. (Although that leaves a single sentence paragraph.)
  • "account of the debacle his enterprise had ended in, and" - "account of the debacle, and" - it's not Ribeaumont's debacle, as the current wording suggests.
Fair. "his" replaced with 'the'.
  • "and should hear of Edward III's comments to Charny" - "and to pass on Edward III's comments about Charny's actions."
Done.
  • "Charny; Ribeaumont later" - break not semi, they are largely unrelated - "Charny. Ribeaumont later"
True. Done.
  • " Charny had to wait eighteen months, until his ransom was paid in full, for his release" - "Charney remained in captivity for eighteen months before his ransom was paid in full."
That gives a different nuance. Why would you like that change?
  • "sensible".[58] Amerigo" - para break.
Done.
  • "It had been agreed that he would instead hand over Guînes, which was his personal possession, a not unusual method of settling ransoms. " - confusing double negative and missing adjective. "hand over the [town|city|keep] of Guînes..." and do you mean "a common way of settling..."? And instead of "it had been agreed", perhaps "Instead of a ransom, Raoul agreed to hand..." and then remove the "not unusual" bit entirely?
Reworded, largely along the lines you suggest, to hopefully be less tortuous.
  • "ring around Calais. Conversely, English possession" - this does not appear to be a converse at this point! in any case, removing "conversely" would seem to be no loss.
Done.
  • "strategic position. Aware of this" - para break. And aware of what? Is it not something more along the lines of "Angered by the change in strategic balance that Guines would have provided the English, the newly crowned..."
I'm not happy about stating that John was angry about something that didn't happen. I have gone with 'Angered by the attempt to weaken the blockade of Calais, the newly crowned French king ... ' Suits?
  • In early January 1352 a band of freelancing English soldiers seized Guînes by a midnight escalade" - so Guînes was not handed over before Raoul was killed? If so, who took possession? The king?
The sources don't say. At an OR guess the property of a "traitor" reverted to the crown. Although given the fuss it caused, John may well have promptly passed it on to Raoul's heir. And no, John had Raoul executed while he was still on parole and arranging his "ransom".
  • "He ordered the English occupants to hand it back. The English" - para break. And it is not stated: there's a week between this order and the meeting of parliament, why was it not handed over already?
Done.
The sources don't say. The freebooters who had seized it weren't under anybody's orders or acting on command. (I can just imagine them saying "Pardon"; "Is he sure"; and "You've got the wrong seal on that scroll mate". Assuming that Edward hadn't told his messenger to take the scenic route while he sweet talked parliament. All blatant OR.)
  • "defences of Calais by the construction " - "with" instead of "by"?
Done.
  • "destroying their siege works. Shortly after," definitely a para break here.
Done.

That's it for now! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maury. Thanks for going through this and for your thorough analysis of the prose. Your points above all addressed. A couple with queries.
I am aware that I will need too revisit the citing in the light of the moved sentence and the split paragraphs, but as you said that there was more to come, I thought that I would wait until you were happy before setting to on that.
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead[edit]

Well I'm not sure there is much more to come after all, it reads much more smoothly now, IMHO. The ones left above, that's fine I won't push on any of them. So that leaves only one bit, the lede... try this on for size, I'm just moving things around a bit. It's four paras instead of three, but more closely gather related items together and, IMHO, clarifies a few of the minor points...

The Battle of Calais took place in the early morning of 1 January 1350, during the Hundred Years' War. English troops in the occupied French city of Calais ambushed and defeated an unsuspecting French force which was attempting to take the city by stealth.

Despite a truce between France and England, the French commander Geoffrey de Charny planned to take the city by subterfuge. He bribed Amerigo of Pavia, an officer of the city garrison, to open a gate for them. Amerigo accepted the bribe and then told the English of Charny's plans. The English king, Edward III, personally led his household knights and the Calais garrison in a surprise counter-attack. The French were routed by this smaller force, with significant losses and all of their leaders captured.

Later that day, Edward III dined with the highest-ranking captives, treating them with royal courtesy except for Charny, whom he taunted for having abandoned his chivalric principles by both fighting during a truce and attempting to purchase his way into Calais rather than fight. The accusations struck deep, and were frequently repeated in subsequent English propaganda, as Charny would later write several authoritative books on chivalry.

Two years later, having been ransomed from English captivity, Charny was placed in charge of a French army on the Calais front. He used it to storm a small fortification commanded by Amerigo, who was taken captive to Saint-Omer and publicly tortured to death.

@Maury Markowitz: You do like itty bitty paragraphs don't you ;-) . Before I respond, could you confirm that we are ignoring MOS:LEADLENGTH where this article falls towards the lower end of "two or three paragraphs"? (17,500 or 21,000 characters depending whether spaces are counted or not.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maury. Trying to stay along the lines you outline above, what do you think of the following. I have stayed within MOS:LEADLENGTH, but if you prefer to IAR it that would be easy.

The Battle of Calais took place in the early morning of 1 January 1350, during the Hundred Years' War. English troops in the occupied French city of Calais ambushed and defeated an unsuspecting French force which was attempting to take the city.

Despite a truce being in effect, the French commander Geoffrey de Charny planned to take the city by subterfuge. He bribed Amerigo of Pavia, an officer of the city garrison, to open a gate for them. The English king, Edward III, became aware of the plot and personally led his household knights and the Calais garrison in a surprise counter-attack. The French were routed by this smaller force, with significant losses and all of their leaders captured.

Later that day, Edward III dined with the highest-ranking captives, treating them with royal courtesy except for Charny, whom he taunted for having abandoned his chivalric principles by both fighting during a truce and attempting to purchase his way into Calais rather than fight. The accusations struck deep, and were frequently repeated in subsequent English propaganda, as Charny was to write several authoritative books on chivalry. Two years later, having been ransomed from English captivity, Charny was placed in charge of a French army on the Calais front. He used it to storm a small fortification commanded by Amerigo, who was taken captive to Saint-Omer and publicly tortured to death.

What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It reads fine, but I still think we need to have the "two years later" separated. I mean, the very first words say exactly why! But I think we should gather comments from others on this one. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: I have gone with four paragraphs as you suggest; breaking before "Two years later". Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is rather small for 4 paragraphs. It might be a good idea to merge the first two paragraphs, the first being too small. We would then be left with one paragraph describing the battle and its overall developments, another describing the immediate aftermath and the propaganda effect of the victory, and a smaller third giving a curiosity related to the events of the battle. Aforst1 (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: Personally I like that, if only because it sneaks within MOS:LEADLENGTH. What do you think?
Note that Aforst1 has reinstated part of the original lead - here - with the edit summary "Brought back the assertion that Charny was a paragon of chivalry, which is more related to the king's taunts than the later fact of his books on chivalry". Perhaps the pair of you could reach consensus over whether it stays?
Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the positive reply. Note that this addition is a matter apart from the no. of paragraphs. I re-added that segment b/c it contextualizes neatly the event of Edward's taunts and Charny's consequently tainted honor. The fact of his books on chivalry, being a later fact, does this less well.Aforst1 (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Well if everyone wants the merge, do this:

The Battle of Calais took place in the early morning of 1 January 1350, during the Hundred Years' War. Despite a truce being in effect, the French commander Geoffrey de Charny planned to take the English-occupied cite of Calais by subterfuge. He bribed Amerigo of Pavia, an officer of the city garrison, to open a gate for them. The English king, Edward III, became aware of the plot and personally led his household knights and the Calais garrison in a surprise counter-attack. The French were routed by this smaller force, with significant losses and all of their leaders captured.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maury Markowitz, Aforst1 seems to have implemented your suggestion. Any further comments or actions? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, sorry, fell of my radar. Looks good, I'm S. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KJP1[edit]

Coming rather late to the party on this one, and perhaps unnecessarily because, if I'm counting correctly, it's got five Supports and endorsements from the Image and Source reviews, although I may be misunderstanding whether or not the Source Review is concluded. All that said, a few minor stylistic comments from me on what reads as a well-written and comprehensively sourced account.

Amerigo of Pavia
  • "Stymied, the French marched away in humiliation and the next day Calais surrendered" - the use of "stymied" threw me a little. First, I wondered if it is entirely encyclopedic language, and secondly I wasn't quite sure as to its meaning. Is it something like - "When Edward declined/refused to comply/oblige, the French marched away in humiliation and the next day Calais surrendered"?
Stymie - "To thwart or stump; to cause to fail or to leave hopelessly puzzled, confused, or stuck" according to Wiktionary. It seemed exactly the correct word to me. Wictionary gives three examples of its use, all from the past 15 years: Wired, New York Times and from Postwar: A history of Europe since 1945. So, to me, it seems common, current and encyclopedic.
French preparations
  • "Charny needed a large force to prevent being repulsed by the strong garrison once he entered the town" - "prevent" reads a little oddly to me. To "avoid" or "to overcome the strong garrison..."?
Good point. Changed to 'avoid'.
  • "although it provided easy access to the harbour by ship's crews" - "for ship's crews"?
OK.
Charny's revenge
  • "Charny neither garrisoned nor slighted Fretun, widely disseminating his view that his argument was a personal one with Amerigo" - not getting the meaning of "widely disseminating" here. Does it mean that Charny went around publicising the view that his actions were chivalrous, or that his actions in not slighting the fort led people to take that view? Can't make a suggestion as I don't quite get it.
OK. How does "Charny neither garrisoned nor slighted Fretun, in order to reinforce his view that his argument was a personal one with Amerigo, which entitled Charny to attack the tower in order to capture him; and that he had acted with honour in leaving it to be reoccupied by the English, as the truce was still, theoretically, in place."


That's the extent of my minor quibbles. It was looking good at the outset, and the extensive review comments have strengthened it. Will be pleased to Support when you've had the opportunity to review the comments. KJP1 (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KJP1: Thanks for dropping by and having a look at this. It is never too late to suggest improvements. Re your four points, all germane: two actioned; one suggested change for your comments; one explanation. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild - All looking good to me. Re. "stymied", absolutely take the point. I might prefer my formulation but it's only a stylistic difference. Pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1: Thanks for the support. I assume that means that you like my proposal regarding your fourth point, so I will execute it. No need to respond unless I have that wrong. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query to the coordinators[edit]

I wonder if I could have permission to nominate my next one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine! --Laser brain (talk) 15:17, 29 October 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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Calais/archive1&oldid=923663416"