Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Poitiers/archive1

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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 13 April 2022 [1].

---

Battle of Poitiers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, here we are. 38 months after my first FAC was promoted (Battle of Neville's Cross) I am nominating my 50th. It has been quite a journey. The company has been excellent and the learning curve has been discombobulating. I offer here another, and my final, Hundred Years' War battle. Described as the most important battle of the war, the French snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Unfurling his sacred standard to indicate that no prisoners would be taken, the French King was himself captured. This, and the resultant collapse of the French government, led to a comprehensive peace four years later on English terms: the war was over. We know a lot about this battle, but the sources contain irritating contradictions and lacunae. I hope that I have done a passable job of leading a reader through these. No doubt you will let me know where I haven't.

This is the longest article I have worked on. And by some way the one I have put the most time and effort into. It has been through GAN and I believe it is ready for FAC. By way of celebration and thanks for all of the putting up with my shoddy prose along the way I intend to ping every reviewer of my previous 49 nominations to have a look at this one. Even those who had me tearing my hair out with their unreasonable readings of perfectly clear text. So please feel free to either leave a full review, or simply decry the paucity of commas in the article. I should ping now, but it's late, and sufficient unto the day ... Gog the Mild (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The following are the sterling group of editors who have corrected my grammar, unmuddled my thinking and contributed hundreds of hours to help get my first 49 FACs into presentable shape. They are cordially invited to comment on my 50th FAC and/or my cheek for so frivolously pinging them. Thank you one and all - the cliché is true, words cannot express my appreciation. User:Nikkimaria, User:Buidhe, User:Tim riley, User:CPA-5, User:Peacemaker67, User:Hog Farm, User:FunkMonk, User:Harrias, User:Wehwalt, User:Serial Number 54129, User:Brianboulton, User:T8612, User:Jens Lallensack, User:JennyOz, User:SchroCat, User:Iazyges, User:Jimfbleak, User:Girth Summit, User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Eddie891, User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, User:Dudley Miles, User:Cplakidas, User:Fiamh, User:Lingzhi2, User:Z1720, User:HaEr48, User:Casliber, User:HJ Mitchell, User:Mr rnddude, User:Truflip99, User:Zawed, User:SnowFire, User:The Rambling Man, User:Heartfox, User:AustralianRupert, User:Chidgk1, User:WereSpielChequers, User:Maury Markowitz, User:Borsoka, User:Dank, User:Shooterwalker, User:Vanamonde93, User:Dumelow, User:Hanberke, User:Mike Christie, User:Reidgreg, User:Therapyisgood, User:Urselius, User:Nick-D, User:Lee Vilenski, User:Airborne84, User:Wikibenboy94, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Grapple X, User:Indy beetle, User:No Great Shaker, User:Gerda Arendt, User:AhmadLX, User:Ceoil, User:RetiredDuke, User:Factotem, User:Hawkeye7, User:Catlemur, User:Kablammo, User:Pendright, User:ImaginesTigers, User:L293D, User:Richard Nevell, User:Cassianto, User:BasedMises, User:Praemonitus, User:SusunW, User:Norfolkbigfish, User:In actu, User:CaptainEek, User:Mardus, User:The ed17, User:Horsesizedduck, User:Truflip99, User:KJP1, User:WA8MTWAYC, User:Chetsford, User:Attar-Aram syria Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• Harv errors: Sumtion 1999, p. 235. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation. Rogers & 20014, pp. 381, 383. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation. (t · c) buidhe 01:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies Buidhe. I must be getting sloppy. Although a newish editor helpfully citing the infobox and rewriting the casualties section to be cited to primary sources after I had done my big pre-FAC copy edit probably befuddled me. Sorted.

• The only images I have questions about are File:Beauchamp Elsing (cropped).jpg and File:Armborst 4, Nordisk familjebok.png. These 20th century depictions were published centuries after the fact and have minimal artistic merit, what is their accuracy or encyclopedic value?

The first removed. The second is an accurate depiction which conveys how a crossbow of the time was reloaded to a reader more effectively than a hundred words could. As such I feel that it meets the prime objective of Wikipedia: it informs and educates the reader.

(t · c) buidhe 01:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks as ever Buidhe, addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Support from Truflip99

How could I possibly decline after getting called out twice (or fourice). Comments soon. --truflip99 (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I blame SN. Sorry about that. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• truflip99 Are you still planning to provide comments? (t · c) buidhe 02:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Going to this now. Sorry about the delay, just been one heck of a week for me. --truflip99 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. No worries. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, and any thoughts or comments will be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• They were driven back... this was also repulsed. -- could use parallel construction

I could. And probably get picked up by reviewers for repetitive prose. The occasional absence of grammatical parallelism is often a deliberate choice in an attempt to stay within "prose is engaging and of a professional standard".

• Could you not wikilink it as Charles, the Dauphin --or-- Charles, the Dauphin? Confusing for those of us unfamiliar, had to do some digging to find Dauphin of France.

Gone with your second suggestion.

• Populist revolts broke out across France. -- why?

It's the lead. It's a summary. The full article provides a fuller picture.

I think most people only read the lead? The sentence alone, with no links whatsoever, reads out of place and could use a tad bit more context.

I disagree. And if someone only reads the lead then they surely expect to gain an incomplete impression of the content of the article - pretty much by definition.

• Negotiations to end the war and ransom John dragged out and Edward launched a further campaign in 1359. -- hard to read; move "in 1359" to the beginning? "to ransom John"? comma after out?

I try to minimise WP:PROSELINE. I have split into two sentences to make it more digestible.

• initiated a resumption -- better to just say "resumed"?

Done.

• The French port of Calais fell to the English in August 1347 after the Crécy campaign and shortly after this the Truce of Calais was signed. This was partially the result of both countries being financially exhausted. -- better wording? "Shortly after, the Truce of Calais was signed, partially as a result of both countries being financially exhausted."

Good idea.

• and is estimated to have killed a third of the population -- "and killed an estimated one third.."

I prefer the original wording.

• because of lack of money -- a lack of money

Done.

more later. --truflip99 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• later commonly known as the Black Prince -- "commonly" seems unnecessary

Why? It seems the essential element of the statement to me.

• devastating a wide swathe of French territory -- ; they devastated ... and sacked (parallelism)

See above.

• "the importance of the economic attrition aspect of the chevauchée can hardly be exaggerated." -- MOS:QUOTE?

I am familiar with it. Which parts do you have in mind? "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea" or "quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia" perhaps?

Should the full stop not be outside the quotation? Asking for my own reference.

MOS:LQUOTE "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark."

• important town of Verneuil -- important in what way?

Culturally, politically, religiously, militarily and financial ly. But it seems unnecessary and to go against a summary style of writing to belabour a reader with all of that.

But this just leaves the reader with more questions than answers, IMO. Esp a reader who's completely unfamiliar with that town, this topic, etc.

"important" removed.

• John pursued, but bungled several opportunities to bring the English to battle and they escaped. -- who "they" are is ambiguous due to the structure of this sentence

I disagree. We have John - who is plainly singular - and the English - who are plainly not - so who could "they" refer to other than the English?

John pursued the English alone with no army alongside?

• The modern historian David Green has described the progress of the Black Prince's army as "deliberately destructive, extremely brutal ... methodical and sophisticated." -- omit has, also MOS:QUOTE?

"has" omitted. See above re MOS:QUOTE.

• and no field army to prevent the Prince's forces from disbursing widely to maximise their destructive effect on the French countryside -- this frag doesn't really make sense to me

Good point. That's me being too close to the military decision making process. I have unpacked a little to "If a French field army had been in the area, the Anglo-Gascon forces would have had to stay relatively close together, ready to support each other if attacked. The absence of any such French force enabled the Prince's formations to disburse widely to maximise their destructive effect on the French countryside." Is that clearer?

Beautiful!

more later. --truflip99 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi truflip99 and thanks for your comments so far. I have addressed them all above and am awaiting with interest the next instalment. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• The French army promptly marched south, as all available forces were concentrated against the Black Prince. -- why not "and" instead of "as"?

Either would work. I feel that "as" is slightly more felicitous and communicates a marginally better feel for the nuances of what was happening.

• if he could do so under the right circumstances -- such as?

I could unpack the military thinking behind that (a couple of sources go into considerable detail) and define all of the terminology. But I am not sure that the vast majority of readers would be much the wiser. And bear in mind that the next section is pretty much devoted to this and allied issues. Might we not be overwhelming readers with the strategic details? Not to mention that if a fuller explanation is needed it should probably go in Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356.

• John sent home nearly all of the infantry contingents, leaving an entirely mounted force which had the mobility and speed to match that of the Black Prince's all-mounted army, as well as reducing the French wage bill. -- I personally would prefer this to read as: John sent home nearly all of the infantry contingents, which reduced the French wage bill but left an entirely mounted force that had the mobility and speed to match that of the Black Prince's all-mounted army.

Done.

• marched hard -- what does this mean?

According to Wiktionary "marched" is the simple past tense of march which means "... to make military advances"; and "hard" means "Difficult or requiring a lot of effort to do".

• to have consisted of 6,000 men: 3,000 men-at-arms -- there's a much earlier instance of this wikilink

True. Moved.

• but in similar battles they used their lances as pikes -- wikilink lance? Unless this is also a javelin?

Nope. Linked.

• wikilink Warsaw University of Technology?

I feel that we are getting well into MOS:OVERLINK territory here, but done.

Done through Anglo-Gascon army section. More later. --truflip99 (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• I am away for a couple of days. I hope to get back to these on Wednesday. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• and 2,000 infantrymen -- were*

Gah! Done.

• there is an earlier mention of spears in the article that should be wikilinked

Moved.

• The French army was divided into four divisions or "battles". -- does this need to be translated twice?

Arguably not, so second mention removed.

• omit duplicate wikilink for dauphin

Omitted.

• The division's leader, Brienne, the constable of France, was killed -- I thought his name was Walter?

Walter was his given name. Nobles are usually referred to by the highest ranking of their titles. (Except for monarchs, who are so exalted that they transcend this to use just their regnal names.) As with Warwick or Orléans.

• to let the French men-at-arms through for their final charge.[171] [177] -- Omit the space between refs

I think that's it from me. --truflip99 (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi again truflip99. Excellent stuff. I think that I have now addressed everything, including your come backs on my initial responses. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Responses and revisions sound good to me! Supporting --truflip99 (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Harrias

Some citation bits and pieces:

• "Pratt, P.L. (2010)." – Why unspaced initials? Unless the MOS has changed in the period I've been dormant, I thought it preferred spaced? Also, the link provided is a dead link for me.

Yes, it's changed. You need to visit more often. Issues fixed.

• "Rodger, N.A.M. (2004)." – Ditto.

Fixed.

• "Rogers, Clifford (1998)" – Seems to be missing his middle initial of J listed in the other three sources of his. Also should only be linked on this, first use to be consistent with your other linking conventions.

Fixed.

• Citation 26 "Madden 2014, pp. 79ff." should be "p." not "pp."

Fixed.

Infobox:

• The belligerents are listed as England and France, but the result is listed as an "Anglo-Gascon victory" – I worry that for a layperson just scanning over the infobox for a quick summary (which is the point, after all) might not be able to put these two facts together: can the fact that Anglo-Gascon is being used synonymously with England be made clearer?

That may be stretching what is allowed/appropriate in an infobox. Good point. Changed to English victory, which is how the sources usually describe it. The intricacies of force composition will have to wait for the main article.

• Strength: It looks very odd that the French strength is listed as:

"11,000

14,000–16,000" – without reading the text, it is not at all clear what this means.

Nor to me. A drive by helpfully cited the infobox and added specific mentions to primary sources after I had done my final check but prior to nomination. I thought I had reverted everything, but clearly not. Fixed.

• Casualties and losses: the two sides are formatted differently. The English side has no bullet point, and is one block of text, the French side has a bullet point, and is presented as two points of information (albeit the second doesn't have a bullet.)

Standardised.

That's it from me for the minute. I'll start on those eight thousand odd words later... Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Cheers Harrias and many thanks for making one of your sadly now rare forays to FAC to look at this. I am bracing myself for further incoming. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Harrias, I hope that things are going well with you. Just checking to see if you were still intending to provide further comment? Which would be most welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I still hope to come back to it, but I've struggled to dedicate any time to it, and I have a work training trip abroad next week, so I won't have any for a little while still. Coords, please don't let this hold the nomination up, I have no glaring objections. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

SUPPORT by SusunW

I'll have to do it in bits and spurts between the visiting guest functions.

• "The only significant French possession"… I find myself asking when this was. Would it be clearer if this sentence moved to follow the first in the previous section? Maybe something like "Since the Norman Conquest of 1066, English monarchs had held titles and lands within France, the possession of which made them vassals of the kings of France. By the first quarter of the fourteenth century, the only significant…" If you do that, omit the "But" which will start the second paragraph.

Done.

• "Bordeaux had a population" reads awkwardly to me. Perhaps "Bordeaux's population exceeded London's by 50,000 inhabitants"?

It reads fine to me. I don't insist on it, but your suggestion reads as a circumlocution.

• "against the expected descent" tripped me up. (My mind went biology and my hubby's take was politics, i.e. ascent/descent) Had to read it several times to get that Edward was going down to France from England. Would advance or assault be a clearer word?

No, as in Wikt:descend: "To make an attack, or incursion, as if from a vantage ground; to come suddenly and with violence." Note in particular the quote there.

Ha! Note here the BBC using "descend" in the same sense I am.

British things are so confusing. LOL

• Link plenipotentiary

Done. (I repeatedly miss that.)

• link Clifford Rogers to Clifford J. Rogers

Done. (And that.)

• "French nobility went over" do you mean they changed allegiance, began supporting the English?

Rephrased as you suggest.

• "Arras rebelled". Perhaps rephrasing is needed. Explaining this is a town would be helpful (but then a town cannot rebel or kill, so should it be "Townspeople from Arras"?, or maybe in war it is typical phrasing for a town to rebel?)

Clarified that it is a town. Towns can indeed rebel. As can regions, countries, peoples, groups and other corporate entities.

I would prefer towns, regions, countries, people, groups and corporate entities to peacefully negotiate. :(

• it is either a 50-mile-wide French territory or territory more than 50 miles wide (only compound adjectives preceding nouns use hyphens)

Oops. Fixed.

• "dismissed Talleyrand and marching hard crossed" seems grammatically odd. Dismissed and marched, crossing? or Dismissed and, marching hard, crossed?
• "If they attempted to" what? Possibily, "to engage, the French"?

Rephrased to hopefully be clearer.

"the Anglo-Gascons would find it almost impossible to withdraw. If they attempted to". Is that really unclear?

• Will you rephrase? (We have compound clause, not a sentence, but a dependent clause is joined with a conjunction to an independent clause, i.e. unequal clauses.) "Having to stay concentrated in the presence of the French army and several days' hard marching had reduced the opportunities to forage and food was almost exhausted."

I have tried. See what you think.

I made a wee edit removing "Having" and giving a subject as "The Anglo-Gascons".

I'll return (start Opposing forces) SusunW (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• In the section about the divisions/battles, you say "William, Earl of Salisbury, deputised by Robert…Maurice", but I think it is the opposite. Robert/Maurice didn't appoint/select William. William chose them. So shouldn't it be "William, who deputised Robert/Maurice"?

You what? To deputise, as in deputise "To act as a substitute for a person in their role or office".

AE, to deputize is to make someone a deputy. My guess is that it may be a BE/AE thing, but since one is unsure that one's reader speaks BE…I'd change it. Your call.

• Do we know which Bartholomew de Burghersh this was and can we link?

Sorry. A primary source added by a drive by. I have removed it.

• Unlink Clifford Rogers here. Should be at first occurrence and then change to simply Rogers here.

Done. (I think - I can't find it, so I assume already tidied up.)

Overall, well done and congratulations. I notice throughout that there is inconsistent use of oxford commas and commas after years. As BE and AE rules are not the same, I leave these up to your discretion, noting only that they should be consistent throughout.

I cannot find any use of serial commas. I'll go through looking for commas after dates to terminate with prejudice.

I couldn't find any commas after dates not required by normal grammar. If you spot any, perhaps you could let me know, and/or extract them yourself?

Please feel free to ignore anything that in my comments appears irregular from the standpoint of military history. As you know, I know absolutely nothing about war, warcraft, or the like. SusunW (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

SusunW, you are wonderful. Good points every one. Responded to above. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Happy to support, Gog. SusunW (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Support from Reidgreg

Nice milestone. Mostly ce notes from me (some of these may have already been addressed):

• The infobox, under strength, has two figures for France: 11,000 and 14,000–16000. The latter is in the lead. The former appears somewhat mysterious. Is this taken from Estimates of the French army vary widely, from 11,000, cited in letters by Bartholomew de Burghersh and Henry Peverel, to Froissart's 60,000.? Please make it clear (in the infobox) whether these are different estimates of the strength of a single force, or the strength of multiple forces.

Apologies. I don't know what happened there. (Possibly part of the "helpful" citing of the infobox a little while ago which I missed when reverting. Removed.

• John was captured, as was one of his sons and according to different sources 2,000 to 3,000 men-at-arms. Would it be any better with the underlined part as a parenthetic (whether in parentheses or bracketted by commas) or perhaps removed as assumed? It seems a little wordy for the lead.

Good point. Tweaked.

• As well either 3,800 or 1,500 French common infantry were killed or captured  The surviving French dispersed Full stop.

Not done. Or, possibly, already done.

• On 4 August 1356 6,000 Gascon and English fighting men headed north from Bergerac. They were accompanied by approximately 4,000 non-combatants. How would you feel about having some separation between the numerals, such as by inserting "approximately" or "about"? If needed, the later "approximately" could be changed to avoid repetition or removed as assumed.

"About" would, strictly, be OR; although it wouldn't over worry me. Tweaked differently

• more than 50-mile -wide (80 km) remove the leading space in the last parameter of {{convert}}. (i.e.: | -wide → |-wide ) The added space doesn't make a difference for named parameters but with unnamed parameters it is included as part of the passed variable. Similarly with approximately 13-foot -long (4.0 m)

  sOK, I see what needs doing, but not how to do it. Any chance you could do one of them. I will then save it to my bag of tricks page and prove that I can use it - or otherwise - by changing the other.</> Now done. Thanks Hog Farm. And I understand.

  Gog, I've correct this for you (I think). The issue is that when adding the -wide or such parameter at the end, there can't be a space between the dash and the pipe key, or the template will interpret that the space is part of the "-wide" string. Hog Farm _Talk 02:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, Hog Farm. I had instructions above but I forgot to use the special pipe cheat in my fancy formatting, and failed to notice it wasn't displaying in preview; now shown. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• to prevent the destruction being wracked in south-west France should this be wreaked?

  No. Wikt:wrack: to wreck; “to cause to suffer pain, etc”; Usage notes Frequently confused with rack (“torture; suffer pain”), though traditionally means “wreck”. Etymologically, wrack and ruin (“complete destruction”) and storm-wracked (“wrecked by a storm”) are the only terms that derive from wrack.

  If that's the meaning you want, why not state it plainly and replace with suffered (or inflicted)? – Reidgreg (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Er. It is stated plainly. But changed.

• and Hélie de Talleyrand-Périgord, Cardinal of Périgord arrived at the Black Prince's camp The underlined phrase should be followed by a comma, as a parenthetic.

Oops. Done.

• Happy to do battle, but concerned that a two-day delay would leave his army with its back to the Loire in an area with few supplies the Black Prince dismissed Talleyrand similarly I feel a comma is needed after 'supplies'; unless you'd rather remove the first comma and use something else like parentheses.

Comma added.

• on the 13th MOS recommends against using ordinals for dates (MOS:ORDINALDATE). I would change: the 13th → 13 September, even if it's wordier. Similarly with On the 14th at the end of the paragraph and 17th in the following paragraph.

True. Done.

• John, aware the outnumbered the Anglo-Gascons, was also eager wipe them out in battle You possibly meant the underlined to be they or he but I might use "his forces" or similar. Make sure there's no confusion with the later them.

Good point. Tweaked.

• but were about to serendipitously position themselves 20 miles (32 km) south of the Anglo-Gascons and directly in their path back to friendly territory A wonderful choice of word, ordinarily, but I feel that this may be editorializing as with lucky or luckily, and that it would be serendipitous from the French POV. Perhaps "advantageously" would be more neutral and objective?

Removed.

• Contemporary accounts notethat missing space

Done.

• campaigning with a similar sized army I would probably hyphenate similar-sized.

Done.

• The King ordered the French sacred banner, the Oriflamme to be unfurled, which signalled comma after Oriflamme.

Done.

• The Anglo Gascon command group conferred hyphenate

Gah!

• only four men by some modern accounts, 400 in others Since the two figures may be compared, you might state four as the numeral 4. (MOS:NUMNOTES)

Done.

• Some were trampled, their innards torn open... Do you think this boxquote might be too graphic? We should be sensitive to the victims' family members who might read this.

I am going to refrain from comment in order to avoid revealing my lack of political correctness.

• Surrounded by enemies  John and his youngest son, Philip, surrendered. I've avoided the urge to recommend commas for most of these, but maybe one here, lest someone momentarily think that Philip surrendered to John and his youngest son, who were enemies. Or better yet, rephrase.

  Grr. Done, but [2].

  Being spineless does offer one a certain fluidity. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• some fought off their pursuers, most escaped while most escaped.

Added.

• If you're pretty sure this will be the final/finished version of the article, you could put in some non-breaking spaces between the day and month in dates and in names like John II to avoid awkward line-wraps.

nbs's now scattered generously throughout.

I wouldn't be upset if you declined any of this. Very nice work! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Reidgreg, good to hear from you again. I have, I think, addressed all of you comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Reidgreg, I think that everything is addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Reidgreg, I was wondering if you felt able to support or oppose the nomination yet? Or is there more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I don't do a lot of these. Support, yea, verily. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Support from HF

I reviewed this at GAN, and thought it was FA-quality at that time. Hog Farm _Talk 20:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

Spelling errors: "over-whelmimgly", "strategem",

Gah! Corrected.

Source review - pass

• All sources are high quality books and journals.
• Some of the journals have ISSNs (eg Magier, Rogers), and others not. ISSNs are not required on the English-language Wikipedia, but they are on some of the others, so I normally add them to help the translators.

• Done. (I think.)

• Kaeuper and Kennedy's ISBN is formatted differently to the others. It should be 978-0-8122-3348-3.

Fixed.

• Some of the multiple author works have ampersands (eg. Kaeuper and Kennedy, Livingstone and Witzel, but others do not. Adopt a consistent style.

Good spot. Standardised.

• Where you have multiple works by the same author, you currently have them in random order. Suggest chronological order.

I thought they were, but I see that one of Rogers' is misplaced. Fixed.

• Add page numbers to fn 21 for consistency

D'oh! Done.

• Spot checks: 24, 36, 68, 138, 155 - okay
• Fn 36: "the importance of the economic attrition of the chevauchée can hardly be exaggerated." Word missing. It should read: "the importance of the economic attrition aspect of the chevauchée can hardly be exaggerated."

That's my wonky copying across. Thank you. Amended. (I had also made the same error in Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355!)

• My preference would be for notes 2 and 3 to be merged into the text, so the notes contain only historiographic information.

I have worked the first into "Opposing forces", which is my preferences. I had a request in another FAC for the term to be fully explained at first mention - ie in the lead. Hence the footnote. I think that no. 2 needs to stay as a footnote. (And I am not sure that I see a difference in principle between it and eg footnotes 3, 10, 11 or 12. (Now 2, 9, 10 and 11.))

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hawkeye7, it is good of you to do this. I have addressed all of your actionable comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Support for prose, from Shooterwalker

Combed through this to look for any major issues with clarity or flow. I had a few nitpicks, but they seemed to be more style than real issues. Happy to support as is. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: with four supports (five if Hawkeye7's is a general support as well as a source review pass), source and image review passes and all of Truflip99's comments to date addressed, and with the nomination now three weeks in, could I have permission to launch another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Hog Farm _Talk 21:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Consider mine a general support as well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

One sentence

Section: 1356 The sentence, In three weeks the expedition had seized a large amount of loot, including many horses, damage had been done to the French economy and prestige, new alliances had been cemented and there had been few casualties. didn't quite work for me. I felt that military gains ie the loot, horses, lack of casuaties and gaining new alliances belong together while the soft power gains of damaging the French economy and prestige were separate.

My version would be: In three weeks the expedition had, with few casualties, seized a large amount of loot (including many horses), cemented new alliances and had damaged the French economy and prestige. Just a thought.Bill Reid | (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Billreid, I like it. Done, except I have dropped the parentheses. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Support - very enjoyable read. Bill Reid | (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz

Hi Gog, Popping in before the other dozens of pingees. This is mammoth. A big read and a 50th! Well done you! I have but a few nitpicks and a couple of questions. (I started this before edits by Billreid so some tweaks may have been done?) For my comments on conversions pls view my templates in edit mode.

lede

• the eldest son and heir of the English King - pipe Edward III?

I prefer not to. It is not all that clear to a reader that this is Edward III. I feel that linking the second mention is, in this case, more helpful to a reader.

Background

• Although Gascony was the cause of the war - control of Gascony?

Actually, no. I have already said "the only significant French possession still held by the English in France was Gascony in the south west. But Gascony was disproportionately important: duty levied by the English Crown on wine from Bordeaux, the capital of Gascony, was more than all other English customs duties combined and by far the largest source of state income. Bordeaux had a population of more than 50,000, greater than London's, and Bordeaux was possibly richer ... Philip's Great Council in Paris agreed that the lands held by Edward III in France should be taken back into Philip's hands on the grounds that Edward III was in breach of his obligations as a vassal. This marked the start of the Hundred Years' War". Is this not sufficient explanation of Gascony's role?

• John II of France attempted - no need for "of France"

Done.

• In 1355 Edward III's eldest - here be no nbs
• set out on 5 October - missed nbs
• Gascony on 2 December - missed nbs

All added.

1356

• from them on 24 April 1356 - missed nbs

Done.

• The modern historian Jonathan Sumption describes the French national administration as "fall[ing] apart in jealous acrimony and recrimination". pp=102, 111, 115 - looks like one quote across 3 diff pages, divide them?

Done.

• On 5 April 1356 John - missed nbs

Done.

• King John moved to Rouen with - wlink Rouen

Done.

Prelude

• separated into three divisions - I think it would be helpful here to mention who headed each of the three divisions?

If we knew, I would. No source gives this and at least one states that it is unknown. It is not the same as the people who led the three divisions during the battle. Nor were the compositions of th three divisions the same.

• more than 50 miles (80 km) wide, yet - use convert ie "more than 50 miles (80 km) wide, yet"

Why. There is no change from a reader's point of view and there is no requirement to use the template.

• brutal ... methodical - fix ellipsis

In what way?

per last time

h. Done.

• The populace of most towns fled - populaces

Done.

• formations to disburse widely - disperse

Done.

• Map showing the routes... - alt=a map showing the route of the BlackPrince's divisision during - add space BlackPrince's, typo division

Dah!

• free passage to the Cotentin - wlink

Done.

• John was marching on Tours - wlink

Done.

• still hoped to cross the Loire River - Loire hasn't been linked since lede?

Linked.

• with either Edward's or Lancaster's armies - who is Edward here, use Black Prince?

Edward III. Clarified.

• The French royal army from Breteuil had moved to Chartres - wlink

this link for Chartres not done?

Sorry. Now done.

• Two hundred Scottish picked men-at-arms - what does "picked" mean? Is it simply 'selected' ie hand-picked or some military term (just for my info)

Picked men - it is nearly always "men", not sure why - are those "select[ed] carefully and with individual attention." Ire, picked out as the best.

• an over-whelmingly strong force - one word, remove hyphen

Done.

• army of the Count of Poitiers - who is this, John, Duke of Berry?

Indeed. Clarified and link moved to the first mention.

you added this 20:55 19 march "where he was joined by the army of his son John, Count of Poitiers." but then removed it with next edit?

Oops. Well spotted. I suspect that I had too many windows open. Fixed.

• France were still underway and shipping - under way two words

Apparently not: wikt:underway.

Movement to contact

• in an area with few supplies - needs a comma after supplies

Added.

• at La Haye on 13 September - fix piped link

Fixed.

Opposing forces

• when campaigning with a similar-sized army - "sized" is a verb here so use adverb "similarly" (eg a widely held belief, or, as below, "so similarly ignored Talleyrand") so should be "with a similarly sized army" with no hyphen?

Done.

• attendants of minor land owners - one word landowners

Done.

French army

• and approximately 13-foot -long (4.0 m); - long is not an adjective here (would be if it said 13 foot-long lances) so no hyphen needed. Just basic 13 feet (4.0 m) long

Done.

• plate armour sown to them - spelling sewn, onto?

Bleh! Fixed.

• and possibly chain mail hauberks.- needs hyphen ie chain-mail hauberks (though actually, is chain-mail hauberk a tautology?)

Done. (No. A hauberk could, for example, be made of scale or plate.)

• of about 220 yards (200 m) - why not simply of about 220 yards (200 m)?

Cus the source says 200 m and I am using imperial units. Not that I much care.

• and his 19-year-old son and heir (the dauphin) - cap D per all other mentions?

No. This is just referring to him having the general status of being the dauphin, not using it to describe a specific individual.

• Behind this was a division led jointly by John's uncle and his 19-year-old son and heir - ambiguous? "John's uncle and his 19-year-old son" could read as the uncle's son. Would changing it to "led jointly by John's 19-year-old son and heir (the dauphin) and John's uncle" be OK?

Good thinking. Done.

Battle

• Prince's personal standard - pipe wlink Military colours, standards and guidons (no problem if you think standard is commonly enough known)

Given the level of MOS:OVERLINK we already have, adding this makes sense. Done.

• laager - is the wiktionary link better than Laager#Variations which mentions "English 'leaguer' ("military camp")"?

Ho hum. Changed.

• were able to reach the gap in the fence with - is "fence" intentional or hedge?

Good spot. I think that I was trying to paraphrase and went overboard. Changed.

• the longbowmen turned against them - insert English or Anglo-Gascons

Why? It has already been specified that longbowmen are either English or Welsh, and who else would be firing at the French?

• who had accompanied the Cardinal during - decap?

Why?

Argh MOSTITLES is sometimes interpreted differently - I wasn't sure your preference eg "was commanded by the king himself" v "many joined the King's division behind" v "aimed directly at the French king" v "still fighting around their King". Again I'm not concerned about this.

Argh back. I had missed the "aimed directly ..." Corrected.

• As some contemporary sources summarise this phase of the fighting with "the first French division was defeated by the arrows of the English" - "some"? does more than one source use that quote?

Amazingly, yes. Rogers, page 379 note 161, gives six different sources using this identical phrase.

• The Black Prince was infuriated by the participation of Talleyrand's relatives and companions - why? did he think Talleyrand therefore was not impartial in negotiations?

Er, yes. Wouldn't you?

• that a relative of the Cardinal - decap?

Why?

• and when told that a relative of the Cardinal had been captured he ordered him beheaded - the cardinal or the relative?

The one who had been captured and whom it was within his power to behead. I could specify, but it seems redundant to me.

Second attack

• Peter Hoskins states that most - move his introduction to here from Casualties

Done.

Third attack

• John had ordered Orléans to escort his four sons to safety - use "John's" instead of "his" to avoid ambiguity

I am not sure there is any ambiguity. If there is, is there not a way to avoid it without clumsily using "John" twice in seven words?

• Three of John's four sons, including the Dauphin, did leave the field at this point - didn't the Dauphin leave in second attack?

Depends on how you demarcate the attacks. But I say "The Dauphin was accompanied by two of his brothers, Louis and John, and the trio's advisors and bodyguards were perturbed by the intensity of the fighting in their vicinity and forced them to withdraw from the front line to a safer position." Which is not the same as leaving the field. Although the extent to which in reality the first, at the end of the second attack, merged into them actually leaving the field, at the failure of Orléans to launch the third attack, is unclear.

Fourth attack

• joined by many surviving crossbowmen from the first attack. - this is said just above?

Could you help me out? I just can't find any prior mention of this.

"Many of the survivors of the first two attacks had rallied to the King"

Ah. Me reading what I intended to write, rather than what I had. I have tweaked that first sentence to only refer to men-at-arms.

• the mile-wide gap (1,600 m) - use conversion "across the 1-mile-wide (1.6 km) gap"?

Er, ok. Done. (Why? I find it more difficult to read that way.)

• towards the by now exhausted - hyphen by-now? Not sure, maybe just remove by

By needs to be there. Google books has zero cases of this being hyphenated.

• prayed - overlink?

Well I certainly think so, delinked.

• through for their final charge.[171] [177] - remove space between refs

Oops.

• started others copied them - followed?

Guessing that you are suggesting replacing "copied" with "followed" (yes?), they didn't actually follow them. They did the same thing, which is slightly different and which "copied" seems to communicate well.

• Champ d’Alexandre - straighten curly apostrophe

Straightened. (I wonder who did thay?)

• were eager to take them prisoner – in order that they could be ransomed – rather than - "in order" frowned on? maybe 'eager to take them prisoner for ransoming, rather than...'

Why is "in order" frowned on? And by who? It seems to precisely describe the situation here.

I'm not concerned but I've seen it considered superfluous in many good-writing guides both on (eg User:Tony1/How to improve your writing#Misplaced formality) and off enwiki and there was/is at least one co-ord who often trims it out when promoting

That would be Ian; usually I grin and bear it. But over this one we go to the barricades!

As always, if in doubt see what Fowler says. The current (2015) edition concludes its article on "in order to" -v- just "to" like this: "There is clearly room for both constructions. It is hard to pin down reasons for the choice of the longer form, apart from its greater formality. The presence of a different kind of to-infinitive in the vicinity … may sometimes be a factor, as will considerations of rhythm and emphasis." If I were you, I'd take that as amply justifying your resolve to man the barricades in defence of your rhythm and emphasis. Tim riley talk 07:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Mopping up

• Frenchmen who had fled soon after the Captal de Buch's force arrived generally reached their horses and were able to escape. - this is repeat of "Most of the first to run were able to reach their horses and escape" but is intentional?

It is, it seemed worth recapping for clarity, but I could rephrase if you think I am over-egging it.

• advantageous to capture in order to hold for ransom. - remove "in order"

Why. If pushed hard I will replace it. The phrase would read poorly as "advantageous to capture to hold for ransom" IMO.

• Among the slain were the French King's uncle; the grand constable of France; the other marshal; the Bishop of Châlons - add names? eg "the other marshal" is Clermont?

I prefer not to. Not least because one only names in full at first mention. The marshal other than the "one of the two marshals of France" mentioned two sentences earlier.

Aftermath

• overladen as they were with loot, booty and prisoners - what is difference loot and booty?

Not what I thought it was. Switched to "plunder".

Peace

• between John and Edward led - That's Edward III (not Prince)?

Clarified. Although it looks clumsy to my eye that one monarch has a regnal number and the other not.

• causing the Treaty to lapse - lowercase t

Done.

• In October 1359 Edward led another campaign in northern France - Edward III or Black Prince?

Clarified.

• In October 1359 Edward led another campaign - wlink Reims?

Done.

Consistencies etc

• advisor x 5 - er per Tim (in prev fac)?

Oops. As I keep telling Tim, I read too much American fiction. And the EngvarB tool doesn't pick this one up.

• some headings have spaces at equals signs, others not

True. And so?

• some alts start with a cap, others not (eg "alt=A map of..." v "alt=a map of...")

As the alt text is for voice readers I assume this makes no functional difference.

Refs etc

• ref 51 Rogers 2014, pp. 342, 244. - second page is 344?

D'oh! Corrected.

• ref 181 Rogers 2014, pp. 282–383. - first page is 382?

Yes.

• ref 202 Rogers 2014, p. 348. - not 384 is it?

No.

• author-link=Richard W. Kaeuper - author-link1

Done.

• Rogers, Clifford J. (2004) - cite news should be journal?

Yes. Done. Well spotted.

• Harari, Yuval - move link to first entry?

Done.

That'll do. Sorry for length! Thoroughly enjoyed reading this. JennyOz (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Jenny, you are wonderful. I don't know how to thank you. It is a bit of a monster, isn't it. I shall try not to do it again. Not your fault that your comments were long, but mine for leaving in so many silly errors for you to find. Everything now addressed, a couple with queries and a couple with disagreements. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jenny, how's this looking now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gog and Ian, so so sorry for delay (access probs again). Gog, I have added a few comments above. None are major, so I will sign my support now esp as I can't know how long before my proper connection is fixed. Congratulations on your 50th! JennyOz (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jen, I am relieved to hear that the delay was not due to health or personal issues. All of your responses addressed. I think; it's me, so who knows? *rolly eyes* And thanks once again for your determination to make this article as good as it can be, in spite of my apparent determination to cock it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

• But Gascony... Do we begin a sentence with "but"?

In this case, yes, we do.

• Bordeaux had a population of more than 50,000, greater than London's, and Bordeaux was possibly richer. Do we need to know it in the article's context?

I can see that where we draw the line is debatable, but I feel that it helps a reader to understand (part of) why Gascony was important to England and its strength in its own right.

• ...Philip's Great Council in Paris... Great Council or Royal Council? Do we need to know that it happened in Paris?

It's complicated, but the part of the Conseil du Roi which made the decision was the Grand Conseil, or the full council, not the smaller executive body.

• In 1345 and 1346 Henry, Earl of Lancaster, led a series of successful campaigns in Aquitaine and the Anglo-Gascons were able to push the focus of the fighting away from the heart of Gascony. I assume that Henry fought for the Gascons, perhaps launching campaigns from Gascony to other parts of the former Duchy of Aquitaine. Why Anglo-Gascons instead of Gascons?

Made it clearer that Henry was English. Because 1. that is how most sources refer to them; 2. Henry's forces consisted of a mix of Gascons and a substantial number of English.

• ...the death rate was over 40% in Southern England Is this a fact or also an estimation? Do we need to know it?

It is what the sources cited give as fact. IMO it helps a reader to understand the magnitude of the event. Given that we have numbers, why use vague phraseology?

• This catastrophe, which lasted until 1350, temporarily halted the fighting. The statement contradicts the following sentence about naval battles, etc.

In what way? The treaty temporally stopped the fighting - check - it was repeatedly renewed - check - the renewals did not prevent some minor skirmishing - check. I don't see a contradiction, what am I missing?

• However, the French king, now John II (r. 1350–1364), decided not to ratify it... Why? I understand this is a key event in the background history of the battle.

OK. It seems a minor piece of background to me. Expanded. Let me know if you would like more detail - as I took Treaty of Guînes through FAC last year I could add pretty much all there is.

• It was clear... Is this encyclopedic?

It seems so to me. I could change to "it was obvious that" or "apparent that" if you preferred, although I slightly prefer the current wording.

• ...his council... Is the wikilink useful? Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Link removed.

• The next day he was formally acknowledged as the king's lieutenant in Gascony, with plenipotentiary powers. Acknowledged or installed? If acknowledged, by whom?

Good point. What it says. By whom added.

• The Anglo-Gascon force marched from Bordeaux in English-held Gascony 300 miles (480 km) to Narbonne and back to Gascony... We were already informed that Bordeaux was held by the English in Gascony, and Gascony is already linked. Where is Narbonne located?

Ah ha. Gascony removed; location details of Narbonne added.

• The English component resumed the offensive after Christmas... Perhaps "the offensive from Gascony"?

Done.

• ...one of the largest landholders in France... Perhaps "in Normandy"? (To better understand the following sentence about the Norman nobles who were not arrested.)

Yes. Done.

• ...Edward diverted an expedition... I assume he is the king, not the Black Prince. Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Clarified.

• Sometime around 20 August he offered the garrison of Breteuil free passage to the Cotentin, a huge bribe and permission to take their valuables and goods, in order to persuade them to vacate the town. The French army promptly marched south, as all available forces were concentrated against the Black Prince. Did the garrison accept the offer? Do we need to know that he offered free passage to the Cotentin?

Rephrased.

• Who is the Count of Poitiers?

The title at the time of John's son John, later to be Count of Berry. He is introduced in the prelude.

• Introduce the Dauphin in section "Movement to contact" instead of section "French army", and also name him. Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Done.

• Crossbowmen usually fought from behind pavises – very large shields with their own bearers, behind each of which three crossbowmen could shelter. A trained crossbowman could shoot his weapon approximately twice a minute and had a shorter effective range than a longbowman of about 220 yards (200 m). Do these statements describe only French crossbowmen?

No. (Or I would have said so.) Although there is no mention of pavises being used by the Gascons in this campaign in the sources. (Which doesn't rule out their use of course.)

• LinkOriflamme. Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Done.

• ...as was one of Talleyrand's nephews and Robert of Durazzo... Durazzo was Talleyrand's nephew killed in the battle.

Excellently spotted. Thank you. A naff typo from me. Fixed, and the other relative named to avoid any potential confusion/conflation.

• ...James Audley... Perhaps Audley? (He was introduces in a previous section.)

Good spot. Done.

• Link John, Duke of Berry when mentioning the Dauphin's brother, John.

Already linked at first mention.

• Link Oriflamme. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Oops. Done.

• Name Charles de la Cerda as the constable of France killed by Charles the Bad.

It seems an unnecessary detail.

• Perhaps our readers are interested in the details of his murder. Borsoka (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I should hope that they are. And that they are interested in myriad other details which I could includ but haven't - from the care and performance of war, riding and transport horses while on campaign to exactly which villages the two armies passed through on their respective journeys from the Loire to Poitiers and many more. But this is summary style. The name of the senior officer killed by a senior French noble as a small part of the descent of France into ungovernability is pretty remote from the Battle of Poitiers. We are in danger of footnoting the footnotes.

• Consider consolidating note 6 with the main text.

I don't see how that can be done without clumsily interrupting the flow of the text. If hard pressed I would prefer to remove the note, which would be a shame.

• Consider consolidating note 11 with the main text or deleting it.

I prefer it how it is.

Congratulations for your 50th FAC. It is an excellent article and its subject is worthy for celebration. Please find my comments above. Most of them present minor issues. Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I think there are two pending issues: Robert of Durazzo and Charles de la Cerda. Borsoka (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Good morning Borsoka, you are being very efficient. Firstly thank you for your kind words about the article and secondly many thanks for the thorough review. Where I had got to above is simply the point at which I went to bed. The two outstanding points now addressed. I think that is all, but please come back if you are not happy with any of my responses or if you spot any other areas for potential improvement. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I am glad to support your nomination. Borsoka (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• @FAC coordinators:  ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm recused, so this'll have to be a Buidhe or Ian task. Hog Farm _Talk 13:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    I'll take a look at it later today or tomorrow. (t · c) buidhe 13:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 00:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.