Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Bergerac/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) 18 March 2019 [1].

Battle of Bergerac[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first nine years of the Hundred Years' War had created an expensive stalemate on all fronts. Then the Earl of Derby arrived in Gascony with a small force. Within three weeks he had smashed the French force assembling at Bergerac and captured the town, marking the start of sixteen months of spectacular success. One of my earlier efforts, but I have worked at it and been encouraged by the comments it received at ACR. @Buidhe, CPA-5, Sturmvogel 66, and Tim riley: were kind enough to comment at that stage and may wish to do so at this. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

  • A marker for me to come back shortly. - 22:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Slightly later than I intended, but...

Gascony
Done.
Plans
  • Do we need the ellipses around the "if there is war" translation if you don't have it in the original?
I think that I am failing to see your point - apologies. Are you suggesting that the ellipses should (simply) be removed?
Yes. I don't think you need them, particularly as they are not in the original (beginning and end quotes are always of dubious value in quotes anyway, but particularly so here). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Gone. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Two very minor points to consider, but whether you act on them or not, this is still a supportable candidate. Nice work. - SchroCat (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Thanks for both the review and the support. A query above re one of your comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Lead caption should use "18-century" as the adjectival form. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thank you. Fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • I'll check DABs and external links while I'm here, both OK
  • add |lastauthoramp=y to Crowcroft to match the ampersand used in the cites. And to Vale since the book has two editors.
  • The sources are known to me as high quality and the bibliography and citations are properly formatted aside from the minor issues given above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: Thanks for taking a look at this. Both additions made. I have also added page numbers to the Rogers article. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in good shape, Gog. I have a few comments:

  • the lead needs work. Per MOS:LEADSENTENCE, the first sentence needs to properly introduce the article. Suggest something like "The Battle of Bergerac was fought between Anglo-Gascon and French forces at the town of Bergerac in August 1345 during the Hundred Years' War." Obviously insert links as needed. I suggest following this with the chronological narrative of the lead beginning at "In the ninth year..." and inserting the details about the commanders and the taking of the French by surprise into the chronological narrative of the lead at appropriate points.
Working on it. I have rejigged it, although not as you suggested. See what you think.
I don't think this addresses my point or criteria 2a. The first sentence doesn't properly introduce the article, place it in context of who fought it, or the war in which it was fought. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Third attempt. I think (hope) I have cracked it.
  • when Bordeaux is first mentioned, state that it was the capital of Gascony there instead of later
Done.
  • link infantry
Done.
  • link siege engine for siege equipment
Done.
  • link Arras
Done.
  • link men-at-arms at first mention, delink later one
Done.
  • suggest "Exactly where the battle took place is also unknown."
Done.
  • the Anglo-Gascon cavalry? are these men-at-arms?
Yes. As it says in the first sentence of man-at-arms, "A man-at-arms was a soldier … who ... served as a fully armoured heavy cavalryman". I have not gone into detail as a) it seemed clear to me b) it is Wikilinked c) it seemed to me to fall foul of "going into unnecessary detail". If, contrary-wise, you feel that the article misses "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" then I could add a paragraph on weapons and equipment earlier on?
  • No, I mean that the layperson would not know that the cavalry were the men-at-arms. I suggest just using men-at-arms here, and avoiding introducing a new term. Of course, there were also mounted archers, which are a form of cavalry, and a charge would not have been conducted by them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Understood. "cavalry" replaced by 'men-at-arms'.
  • who was the author of the St. Omer Chronicle?
No one knows. Nor if it was written by an individual. Usually referred to as "the St Omer Chronicler".
  • Clifford Rogers can just be Rogers at second mention per MOS:SURNAME
Done.
  • Henri de Montigny should be mentioned earlier in the body as the commander of the French force, and linked at first mention in the body
Done.
  • the point of the sentence in parentheses beginning "This more than covered..." is lost on me. Was this Derby's residence in London? Even if it was, it isn't clear to me why this is germane.
Removed. (It was intended to give a reader a feel for the value of the ransoms, but apparently it mors confused than enlightened, and so is gone.)
  • Once you've introduced Derby, he should probably be just Derby thereafter?
Done.
  • suggest "[a] superb and innovative tactician"
Done.

That's me done. Great work on this one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67, many thanks for the thorough examination. All fixed, bar the lead which I am working on would be grateful if you could have another look at, and men-at-arms/cavalry which I have discussed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: The lead and "cavalry" addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Re-reading for FAC I have been as interested and impressed as at previous perusals. A splendid piece, concise, at less than 2,400 words, but evidently (to a layman) comprehensive, well written, neutral in tone, suitably illustrated, and widely and authoritatively sourced. I look forward to more from Gog on the various punch-ups of the Hundred Years' War, and for now will just support. Tim riley talk 17:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim[edit]

Very little to quibble with. I wondered why you wrote large numbers in full, eg 100,000,000 litres instead of 100 million litres, but your call Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:34, 10 March 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_Bergerac/archive1&oldid=888413460"