Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Caen (1346)/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 5 May 2019 [1].

Battle of Caen (1346)[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another article on the Hundred Years' War. At least it is not about Gascony. This features the much-vaunted English army of Crécy a little earlier in the campaign. Completely out of control both before and after they stumble to victory in their assault on Caen. A stain on England's record which neither discomfited them nor persuaded the French to battle. It has just gone through ACR and I think that it is there or thereabouts in terms of FA class; if not, don't hesitate to let me know. I am grateful to @Nikkimaria, Peacemaker67, CPA-5, Jens Lallensack, and Sturmvogel 66: for reviewing at ACR; if you would care to kick the tyres again I would be even further in your debt. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Map should use |upright= rather than fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack[edit]

  • My few quibbles were already addressed at the A class review. I don't have anything more to add, and supporting here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM[edit]

I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, and could find precious little to remark upon then. I consider it meets the Featured criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Just some minor comments here.

  • By 12 August they were 32 km (20 mi) from Paris Both the UK and France didn't use metric units so Imperial units ought be the primary units here.
Someone had added "disp=flip". It wasn't me and I don't know why it was added, so removed.
  • which was to last one hundred and sixteen years --> "which was to last 116 years"
I thought that I had caught all of those. Thanks.
  • 32 km (20 mi) from Cherbourg Same as above Imperial units ought be the primary units here.

As above. That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5. Thanks for that. All sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good in my view, support.Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources are all working
  • No formatting issues
  • Quality and reliability: The sources appear to be comprehensive, and to meet the FA criteria for quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, Gog, nice work. Just a few minor observations/comments from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • offered the town surrender terms: do we know what these were?
Added. Did my style become too summary? Apologies.
Change looks good. It can sometimes be difficult to balance between too much detail and not enough. It is difficult to know what will interest some readers (and reviewers for that matter!). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caen was garrisoned by 1,000–1,500 soldiers...: suggest maybe splitting this sentence. Potentially, this might work: "Caen was garrisoned by 1,000–1,500 soldiers, a large proportion of whom were professional crossbowmen, and an unknown but large number of armed townsmen. They were commanded by Raoul, the Count of Eu, who was the Grand Constable of France, the senior figure in the French military hierarchy."
Done.
  • preempted --> "pre-empted" in British English?
The dictionaries I own seem confused on this. That said, I inherited the word and am a little disconcerted that I haven't picked it up myself. Changed.
No worries. My dictionary uses "pre-empted", but if others disagree, I'm happy to be corrected. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford English Dictionary hyphenates the word. Tim riley talk 22:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Sources section, suggest moving the link for Ormrod to the 2008 work as it appears first
Done.
  • in the Sources section, Clifford J Rogers appears to be overlinked
Tactfully put. Done. (As was DeVries.)
Good pick up. I'd spotted DeVries, but for some reason didn't note it. Must have gotten lost in the excitement, as I was watching the football when I was typing out my review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Sources section, the ISBN for Ormrod 2012 uses a different hyphenation scheme to the others
Fixed.
  • in the Sources section, move the link for Boydell Press to the first mention
Done.
Hi AustralianRupert. As ever, many thanks for your scrutiny. Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great work as always, Gog. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Just booking my place. Shall look in tomorrow, I hope, or shortly thereafter. Tim riley talk 21:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roll up! Roll up! Special offers on FAC reviews. Why, thankee kindly sir. (I'm trying for seven in the first four months of the year.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed this article extravagantly. A few quibbles:

  • "5,000 of the ordinary soldiers and townspeople were killed" – a remarkably precise number. Would a "some" or "about" be in order?
The sources say 5,000. I believe that there was a careful body count and it just happened to produce a round number. Statistically, that is bound to happen occasionally.
True, and I don't press the point.
  • "20 mi" – 20 miles? And subsequently, "mi" for "miles" in ordinary text looks odd to me, but if that's the prevalent form, so be it.
Someone has been playing with the convert templates. I have tweaked them for you.

"enormously superior" – the quotes seem a bit odd. It's an unremarkable phrase that doesn't seem to call out for quotes, assuming ref 18 substantiates it. Likewise "achieved complete strategic surprise", later.

A peccadillo of a previous reviewer. Removed.
  • "many ships deserted, having filled their holds. They also captured" – They were presumably not the deserting ships, which is what this says.
Picky, picky. Sloppy of me; fixed.
  • "the island formed between the Orne and the Odon" – formed? Like the Île Saint-Louis in the Seine? Just checking.
Correct. If you scroll about a third of the way down (LINK REMOVED TO COPYRIGHT VIOLATING BLACKLISTED SITE) there is a map.
  • "populus" – not in the OED. Possibly the populace?
I have spelt it correctly elsewhere in the article, so I am not even being consistent. Fixed.
  • "melee" – the OED gives this its diacriticals: mêlée
As usual, different dictionaries give differing results, with the older ones tending to agree with you. I am happy to be traditional. Changed.
  • "he was summarily executed by the French king" – a citation would be good for this. (And if we're being really pernickety, the king had him executed but, I imagine, didn't do the job himself.)
Citations? My goodness, you are fussy today. It's in the cite at the end of the paragraph, but just for you I have researched and added another, from a different source, at the end of the sentence. And applied appropriate delegation to the king's whim.
I hope I am always fussy, but fussiness now addressed satisfactorily. Tim riley talk 22:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. I look forward to supporting when I revisit this review shortly. – Tim riley talk 19:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Tim. Thanks awfully for dropping by. I hope that it wasn't too much work. Your various comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Minor quibbles now attended to. Very happy to support promotion to FAC. Meets all the criteria in my view, and is a really good read into the bargain.

Query to coordinators[edit]

@FAC coordinators: To my untutored eye it looks as if this FAC may be drawing to a close. If I am mistaken, apologies. However, if it is, could I request permission to nominate my next candidate? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Gog, I honestly don't recall this showing up on my notifications but perhaps it was temporary blindness -- anyway pls feel free to start another nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 5 May 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_Caen_(1346)/archive1&oldid=1055545030"