Talk:Battle of Lunalonge/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 10:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very brief article, but has an acceptable structure and the detail seems to reflect the reliable sources I could find on Google Books. I do wonder if the books by Charles Oman like A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages have anything further to add about the difficulties the French faced with English tactics.

I usually try to stick closely to the title of an article. (I have broken this rule with a recently expanded article, Siege of Calais (1349), which I think you assessed for B class. I shall be submitting it for GAN as soon as I have cleared my backlog and I shall be interested to see how it goes down.) So I restricted myself to

The French were wary of attacking the English position head on; in earlier battles during the war this tactic had fared badly. Instead they took advantage of their superior mobility...

I have plenty on the evolution, or lack thereof, of French tactics, including a couple which use Lunalonge as an example. (I would rather stay a bit more recent than Oman, who doesn't mention Lunalonge.) If you think it appropriate I could easily knock together a short sourced paragraph for you to look over, perhaps with a view to expanding the sentence above or to adding it to the end of Aftermath?

Correction: Oman does, twice, briefly, mention Lunalonge. But I would still prefer to use more modern analyses. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given Oman was revised and updated at recently as 1978, and is still a reference on war during this period, I would have thought he would be ok. In fact, not using him might be seen as not being comprehensive. It seems to me that it wouldn't hurt to include him. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oman's scanty references to Lunalonge both cited. Also see query below.

A few points:

the lead contains a statement about the location of the battle which is cited, but not covered in the body. Suggest copying the info and citation to the first mention of Lunalonge in the body and leaving just the info in the lead

Done.

I would also bring the info about the loc to the second sentence, and drop the years in parentheses from the piping of "first phase". If the reader wants to know what years constituted the first phase, they can follow the link

Done.

suggest "between the two monarchies"

Done.

link Middle Ages

Done

place Gascony and Ponthieu geographically, ie "Gascony in south western France, and Ponthieu in northern France" in any case, drop the parentheses

Done.

link Duchy of Aquitaine

Done.

suggest "which included much/all of Gascony" as they weren't identical

I have done this, but, IMO, and that of at least two historians who directly state this, they were effectively the same thing. Edward didn't hold any of Aquitaine which wasn't also Gascony to be handed back. It may be easier for me to skip the clearly confusing "Aquitaine" bit?

I actually think it reads ok. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the English and French kings" are they the same kings at this point?

Done. (Although it now reads clunkily to me.)

I meant was it still Philip VI and Edward III, or did either kingdom have a different king at this stage? If the same, I think it could be left as "between the two kings". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Yes, it was. That's what comes of being too close. Amended as you suggest.

if Jean de Lille is likely to be notable, redlink at first mention in the body, as well as the lead

Oops. Sorry. Done.

suggest "local Poitevins to ~~moved to~~ besiege Anglo-Gascon-held"

Done.

link Bordeaux

Done.

not sure about de Lille, should this just be Lille, same as we do with von for Germans after giving their full name?

Good point. Most modern historians of the period seem to try to repeatedly use full names. (Possibly to avoid this issue?) Where they don't there seems to be a majority movement to miss the "de" in the limited sample I have looked at, but numerous examples where they don't and, at least, one case of inconsistency. Done.

was this really an ambush? It isn't described as such in the narrative, given the Anglo-Gascon force were able to withdraw to a high point then meet the French assault

Sumption, the most detailed modern account, specifically states it was an ambush, but gives no detail. He seems to be basing this on Froissart, who is similarly unforthcoming re details. So I have removed this.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67. Thanks for picking this up. Your comments addressed above. I await your responses and the next installment. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

suggest "They sent their horses" as "horse" is sometimes used to refer to cavalry, and I assume in this case the Anglo-Gascon force was mainly if not solely mounted, and we are talking about their mounts?

Done.

link Train (military)

Done.

what data or original map was the map based on?

Page 17 of Muir's Historical Atlas (1971) London; Philips and Son ISBN 978-0540050277. Now added to the image file. I have also rewritten the legend.

you shouldn't need citations in the infobox, as everything there should be in the body.

Done. (A previous GAN assessor asked me to duplicate citations in the infobox.)

That's me done. Just popping this on hold while you finalise a couple of things. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67, thanks for all of that. All addressed, except, possibly, your issue about the development of French tactics. Given that this was an almost wholly Gascon force the encounter is a bit atypical (ie, no longbows), but I could beef up the little I did write on previous French tactics if you think that it is not getting too off topic.

I have also added a couple of additional references and done some light copy editing.

Over to you.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by an appropriately licensed map with an appropriate caption. Passing. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]