Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347/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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 12 February 2022 [1].

Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An overarching article for a period of the Hundred Years' War where a lot happened - little of it to French benefit. Much of it became known as the English King's annus mirabilis. Francophile readers may wish to look away. This article attempts to summarise a number other articles, set them in context and fill the gaps between them. No doubt I have done all of these imperfectly and I look forward to your pointing out the specifics of this to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass no licensing issues found. Some maps could be scaled up for increased readability (t · c) buidhe 13:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

Just booking my place. More anon. Looking forward to this. Tim riley talk 16:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a substantial (and excellent) article, and I shall need more than one go at commenting on it. First go:

  • Lead
  • "commenced an offensive" – "commenced" is a bit refained. Perhaps began, launched or started?
Done.
  • "counterattacked Derby's forces" – the OED hyphenates "counter-attack"
Done.
  • Gascon campaign
  • "tie down most of the weak French garrisons in the region" – ambiguous: did they fail to tie down the strong ones or were all the garrisons weak?
Is a response of "yes" acceptable? Fixed.
  • Derby's offensive
    • "defeating them in a running battle" – this is very properly blue-linked to the article on the battle, but though I have often seen the phrase "running battle" I'm not actually sure how such a battle is to be distinguished from a non-running one, and would be glad of an explanation in the text or as a note.
I shall need to see how the sources describe it.
Rewritten, to be a little less summary but hopefully a lot more readily imagined.
  • "Within days of the battle, Bergerac fell" – unexpected AmE-style comma
As you will be aware, I have little truck with the silly fashion for inserting a comma after any mention of time, but in this case it seems necessary for the flow; I find it impossible to read, much less speak, the sentence without pausing there - hence the comma. Is that just me?
That's the nice thing about BrE: commas like this are neither compulsory nor taboo, and if you feel one helps the flow here I'm not going to complain. Tim riley talk 20:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several strongpoints on the way" – the OED makes "strong points" two separate words. Occurs again later in the text.
Done.
  • Crécy campaign
  • "many ships deserted. They also captured" – perhaps "the English also captured" rather than the deserting ships doing so?
Ah! Fixed. ("The fleet also ...")
  • Battle of Crécy
  • "These charges were disordered due to their impromptu nature" – "due to" is not accepted in the Queen's English as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to". "Because of" would be better.
I know this, but I can't help myself. Fixed.

I am enjoying reviewing this article. More tomorrow, I hope. – Tim riley talk 19:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second and concluding lot of comments
  • Battle of Crécy
  • "disordered due to their impromptu nature" – another "due to" used as a compound preposition.
  • Fall of Calais
  • "In late-April" – not sure this wants a hyphen
Gah! Removed.
  • Aftermath
  • "England had lost all of its territory in France" – we don't need the "of" surely?
Removed
  • "Calais was finally lost following the 1558 siege of Calais." – the repetition of Calais is rather an anticlimactic end to your narrative. Would "… the 1558 siege of the town" suffice?
It would. Thank you.
  • Notes
  • You seem to have two conflicting methods of citing these four notes: the first two cite Sumption inline; the second two cite Sumption and Lambert in the Citations section. Best be consistent, I think.
How odd. I had missed that. Now fixed.

That's my lot. All very minor quibbles. – Tim riley talk 13:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks indeed Tim, for helping to translate this into English from whatever argot I write in. All done, I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent article, as we have come to expect from this source. Clearly meets all the FA criteria in my view, and I support its elevation to FA. Tim riley talk 20:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Can't see issues with the ccitations section
  • I think I understand your location naming logic? Could you briefly clarify? Also why "Conn.", seems out of nowhere to abbreviate
I only add to the bare place name if it seems clear that an intelligent reader would not be able to otherwise identify it. You are quite right about Conn. Expanded.
  • Recommend OCLC for Fowler, see here
Added
  • Why "Fowler, Kenneth" vs "Fowler, Kenneth Alan"?
That is how they are given in the thesis and book respectively. Would you prefer me to tweak the former, rather than use the form given?
I wasn't sure if that was the reason, but since it is, it seems fine Aza24 (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should probably be "Penguin Books" in Rodger
Done.
  • Is there a reason for both "Boydell & Brewer" and "Boydell Press"? I think the latter was merged in the 70s, so unless you're using books from then, they should all presumably be the former?
"Boydell Press" is what WorldCat has. Both for this and for other 21st C volumes.
Got it, lets definitely trust WC on this one then
  • Also Rodgers is the only time you have just "Woodbridge" for the location (as opposed to "Woodbridge, Suffolk")
Oops. Fixed.
  • You author-link Omrod twice, but don't do so for other repeated authors in the biblio
My error. De-linked at second mention.
  • It should probably be clarified that the dnb source is from the Edward III article. Perhaps "Edward III: Crécy and Calais, 1346–1347"? Or alternatively you could just have it be "Edward III" and then for the short foot note do "loc=Crécy and Calais, 1346–1347".
Quite right. I have gone with your first suggestion.
  • Fowler, Kenneth (1961) seems to need an account for the link, so maybe a url-access= parameter for it?
Good news - you don't need to register to access a thesis; bad news, they don't actually have this one, despite me thinking I downloaded my copy from there. No, any link anywhere to the thesis seems to have disappeared (odd and frustrating - I have used it for half a dozen FAs) so I have removed the link.
Thanks, added.
Reliability
  • No issues, all from established publishers or authors. The dissertation is a PhD so should be usable
And the PhD was by a now Emeritus Professor of Medieval History!
Verifiability
  • 57 – good
  • 68 – good
  • 73 – good
  • 74 – good
  • Given the above and nominators experience, I see no reason for further spot checks. Aza24 (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thorough source review Aza24, clearly I have been getting sloppy. All of your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and 'sloppy' is an overstatement, I have seen much worse :) – Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since the Norman Conquest of 1066, English monarchs had held titles and lands within France" Why, because they descended from the Normans?
To simplify a bit, yes. But that is unnecessary detail. If you want I could abbreviate to 'Since 1066', but that seems to beg "What happened in 1066?"
Wouldn't have to be anything detailed, but if accurate, I think something like "through inheritance" alone would greatly clarify it for lay readers with minimal additional text. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Good point. I have tweaked the opening to "Since the Norman Conquest of 1066, English monarchs had held titles and lands within France by inheritance. Their possession made them vassals of the kings of France." Better?
  • I wonder if the particular scope of the article is defined by the sources, or if it is a somehow arbitrarily delineated interval?
The period between the recommencement of hostilities after Philip ended the Truce of Malestroit and the Truce of Calais is used by scholars, but usually in a general, difficult to cite way - eg as a chapter or section header. Edward's Annus Mirabilis is commonly cited, usually meaning from the Battle of Bergerac to that of Neville's Cross. (Yes, that covers thirteen-and-a-half months, but allowing time for news to reach England from France it almost works, and I suppose it was just too pat for anyone to get fussy.) I considered naming the article that, and would still have no objections, but running it back a little to the start of Lancaster's expedition and extending the end to the conclusion of the siege of Calais and the truce seemed more natural, and matched rhe timing in the Wiki-template.
Might almost be tempting to bold "Edward III's annus mirabilis" in the intro then, as I guess this is the article that covers that as a subject too? FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I have done that, let's see what other reviewers make of it.
  • Normandy seems to be linked twice, but with two different destinations.
Good spot. Thanks. Anachronism removed.
  • Link cannibalism?
! You think that many readers won't know what it means?
They would, but that article has many other examples of war-time cannibalism for context (almost worthy of an article?), I think that subject is pretty interesting in itself. But no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "found willing listeners in September and by the 28th a truce" Could we get the year here for context? I guess this is the natural cut-off point I was asking about earlier.
It is, it is. Good point. Rephrased to stress the date a little.
  • "which served as an English entrepôt into northern France for more than two hundred years." Doesn't seem to be stated explicitly in the relevant part of the article body.
Very good point. The role of Calais post-siege expanded on.
Hi FunkMonk, and thanks for that. Most helpful. Your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers FunkMonk, both done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

Great to see this period pulled together so well, Gog. I have a few comments:

  • the infobox has an end date of 3 August 1347, but the truce was agreed on 28 September 1347? This also poses a question for where the Aftermath section should start.
Good question. I am treating the article as based on the English offensives (and partially as an extended version of Edward's annus miralilis). Tend to end this period with the fall of Calais, with the truce as a sort of afterthought. But that is more my take than anything I could point at and cite. What are your thoughts on this.
In general I would think periods of campaigning begin with first shots and end with an armistice, rather than the last action of the campaign. This isn't a war-stopper, just seems incongruous to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Changed.
  • "Although Gascony was the cause of the war" doesn't really follow. In territorial terms, Ponthieu as well, presumably?
Actually not. I can't find a source saying that Ponthieu was forfeited, and it was a recent acquisition, not a centuries old patrimony. And Gascony generated 40-50% of the English Crown's peacetime income, making its status a more pressing matter.
I think you need to explicitly state why it was the cause of the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As in

Philip's Great Council in Paris agreed that Gascony and Ponthieu should be taken back into Philip's hands on the grounds that Edward was in breach of his obligations as a vassal. This marked the start of the Hundred Years' War, which was to last 116 years.

already in the background?
I don't think so. You have explained above (but not in the article to this point) that Gascony was important to England for economic reasons, and stated in the article that Gascony was the cause of the war, but you haven't connected the dots in the article between Gascony's economic importance to England as the underlying reason why Gascony was the cause of the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker, I keep coming back to this, looking at it, thinking it over, not getting anywhere, and putting it to one side for a couple of days. I'm going to time out if I don't break the cycle. What the RSs say is what I have said in the article. It can't be that bad, as it is my boiler plate introduction to more than a dozen FAs, including several you have reviewed. When sources go into more detail, they tend to do into a lot of detail. Eg Sumption's The Hundred Years' War takes 184 pages to get to the French Great Council meeting. Given that this is deep background I am reluctant to go into the dozen or more areas that led to an increase in tension and eventually to the two countries stumbling into war. Even if I could summarise them, reviewers would keep wanting a bit more detail on each, and they would take over the article. So I write " Following a series of disagreements" to summarise this. The sources all agree that, with hindsight anyway, the threshold that moved things from armed hostility to non-campaigning war was Philip's repudiation of Edward as a vassal and "confiscation" of Aquitaine (Gascony) - without going into further detail as to why this should be a declaration of war. Sumption for example, after 183 pages of background, gives this fewer words than I have just in this response. (I could email it to you.)
Apologies if this doesn't address your point, but I seem to have lost track of what it is. As you can probably tell, I am having something of a mental block on this.
As a reality check I have just reread Wagner's Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War entry on "Hundred Years' War, Causes of". A partial quote "The immediate cause of the war is generally taken to be PHILIP VI’s confiscation of Aquitaine in May 1337, but the roots of the dispute over the duchy, which is considered by some historians to be the key to the entire war, extend back to the eleventh century when William, duke of NORMANDY, became king of England". He then goes on to summarise 300 years of Franco-English relations. Wagner's article is probably as decent a short summary as there is. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is going to resolved. I'm happy to put it aside, as others haven't got hung up on it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whenever an English army campaigned on the continent it operated in northern France" when was this?
Added.
  • wasn't the Truce of Malestroit about Brittany? What is the connection with South-western France?
As so often when one digs, things were not so simple. To quote Wagner in "On 19 January, representatives of the two kings signed a truce in the Church of St. Mary Magdalene in Malestroit. Although the agreement gave Vannes to the pope, who was to hold it for Philip until expiration of the truce, its terms were generally favorable to Edward. Both kings retained their current holdings in Brittany, FLANDERS, AQUITAINE, and SCOTLAND". AQUITAINE in this context means SW France. Icould give more detail if you wish.
Perhaps summarise that in a single sentence? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker, I have been staring at this, and have no objections to making changes, but am struggling to see what they might be that would address your concern and also improve the article. I write "but as the Truce of Malestroit, signed in early 1343, was still in effect, the local lords were reluctant to spend money and little was done." I could add something like 'which forbade fighting between the French and the English', but it seems hugely redundent to me. If you disagree, let me know and I'll add it. Or if you are after something else, could you unpack it a little for my Christmas fodder slowed brain? Cheers.
Nah, forget it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • on second mention, should it be just "l'Isle-Jourdain" or "de l'Isle-Jourdain"?
It should. Fixed. (In a previous discussion you persuaded me to skip the leading de, but not d'.)

Down to 1346. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • link Aiguillon to Aiguillon, Lot-et-Garonne at first mention
Done.
  • south east→south-east IAW previous hyphenation of sub-cardinal directions
Not done. I use south west, unhyphenated, except when a hyphen is required because south-west is used as a compound modifier.
OK. Presumably that is a style guide thing? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have always considered it a normal variety of English. It is only since I have been editing Wikipedia that I have noticed widespread uses of other variants.
  • instead of Note 2, could you go with "the Earl of Lancaster, previously the Earl of Derby," and dispense with Note 1?
Good thinking. Tweaked.
  • "burning every town they passed" and "razed every town in their path" is a bit repetitive. Perhaps for the latter, "Beyond the razing of towns, his soldiers also looted the populace of whatever they could." would be better?
The destruction of the towns was arguably more important than thefts from individuals, and the sources put stress on it. I have left the first mention ("burning every town they passed") and changed the second to "... to reduce his opponent's morale and wealth by razing his towns and stealing the populace's portable wealth." Does that work?
Sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the second and third paras of the Crecy campaign section are chronologically mixed. Would it be possible to integrate them better?
Bleh! No idea what I was thinking. Actually it was a real mess. I have shuffled things around and I think that the chronology now flows.
Much better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is Jonathan Sumption?
An ex-member of the UK Supreme Court. Added.
  • same as point above re: "ports of south east England"
Amended.
  • "Philip's heir, Duke John, fell out with his father" we already know he was his heir
Done.

Down to 1347. More to come, tomorrow probably. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest linking mercenary
Done.
  • "A Flemish force of 20,000" presumably English allies?
Clarified.
  • link materiel?
Done.
  • "partly because of the unexpected timing of the need"? what need? He had launched the raids himself.
He launched some minor opportunistic raids. He had not expected Philip to recall the French army. He was correct in this, the army failed to effectively reassemble. It seems clear to me, but I could readily add this detail. Or more?
Yes, I think it needs to be explained. "partly because he had not expected Philip to recall the French Army in response to his raids" (or WTTE) would do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked.
  • "Two cardinals acting as papal emissaries found the kings to be more willing listeners" more willing? Had they tried before?
Ah, edited out as I tried for a more summary style. Tweaked.
  • "the Flemish were confirmed in their de facto independence" seems to be new information not introduced in the body?
Indeed. Most of the aftermath is new information. Am I missing your point?
There is no hint earlier that Flemish independence was threatened, so it just begs a question "what threat". Is it really necessary, if so, then I think the threat to Flemish independence needs tro be explicitly mentioned at the point in the chronology that it is first raised during the campaign. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded their first substantial mention to "It was also close to the border of Flanders; which was nominally part of France, but in rebellion, allied to the English and willing to send troops to assist Edward."

That's me done. Great work thus far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent Peacemaker, your usual insightful review. All of your comments responded to, a couple with counter-queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, always a pleasure Gog. A couple of responses above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peacemaker, your come backs all addressed, at least one with a further query. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy New Year Peacemaker. Just a reminder in case this one had slipped off your radar. If it hadn't and other things are occupying you then, obviously, no worries. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, supporting now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serial[edit]

Back once again with the renegade master. I was looking for something HYW-related, so this is a serendipitous find. A few comments/suggestions.

  • How about a map showing territorial positions at the beginning of the period (base on somthing like this. @Nikkimaria:, what think you of the MOS:CONTRAST of that image?
    Not great, although it could potentially be supplemented with an explanatory caption. (Firefox includes an accessibility feature in its devtools that allows you to simulate different types of colour blindness - useful for cases like this). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something? I already use that map in Background.
Testing, testing!
  • The reader encounters an image of Philip immediately, but needs must get halfway down the page before he encounters one of Ed?
And so? (There isn't a convenient place to put it any higher up. It needs to be on the left.)
And so, {{multiple image}} is your friend; see, for example, [2].
Done.
  • Should annus mirabilis be bolded? It is not, later on; suggest the {{lang}} template.
I am indifferent, but see reviewer's point above. That template is used at the only other mention.
I probably shouldn't have distracted things by mentioning that template, the MOS point is that foreign terms are italicised rather than bolded: MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.
? I know that. The lang template is used.
  • This marked the start of the Hundred Years' War... Although Gascony was the cause of the war, Edward was able to spare few resources for it... A couple of things. Firstly, it effectively states the same thing twice in a row, if broken by /PARA, and secondly, I don't see the connection between the war starting in any location and the need for its funding. (I.e., the war needs to be funded due to the fact of its starting rather than where it started) so perhaps something like This marked the start of the Hundred Years' War, which was to last 116 years./ Although war was now inevitable, Edward was able to spare few resources for it... or the like.
Edward could spare lots of resources for the war, just not for Gascony. I think the current wording explains things well - I am enboldened by it having survived ore than half a dozen prior FACs - so could you unpack your objections to it a little more for me? Ta.
Edward could spare lots of resources for the war, just not for Gascony, yes, that would help.
You are losing me a little here. Going back to your first comment re "I don't see the connection between the war starting in any location and the need for its funding" I think most readers would see an issue over a war being started to retain a region and then few resources being sent to it to actually defend it. Re your last comment, you are losing me a bit. Would "Although Gascony was the cause of the war, Edward spared few resources for it" do the trick? Ie, It was Edward's conscious choice.
  • ...formalised in the Truce of Espléchin + "the same year"?
Done.
  • Derby and Stafford are identified by their first names + title, the seneschal by his full name, but Northampton is just Northampton?
Done.
  • Mention of the Treaty of Malestroit in 1343 is slightly jarring, since the reader has recently been told of a Treaty of Espléchin three years before that?
Really? Each mention of each treaty states the year it was agreed. A reader will, surely, expect the Background to be a rapid run through, and not jarred that two paragraphs on in a new sub-section events have moved on chronologically.
  • "; by this time it was impossible..."?
I can't find this quote. When I do, what is the issue with it?
Ah, the quote is actually by which time it proved impossible, apologies.
  • Malestroit encore! If it was tenuous, though, should it be introduced as such the first time (perhaps with a hint as to why also).
I can't do that without jumping around chronologically. When it was signed it wasn't intended to be tenuous. Nor, probably, expected to be. It only became so later, which seems an appropriate point to mention it.
Serious question, when you say "why", do you mean that, or 'the ways in which it was'?
Both, really; but I accept that that may be a level of detail suited to their individual articles rather than per summary style.
  • Stafford carried out a short march north; Stafford marched north to nearby-Blaye, where he left the Gascons to besiege the town. Stafford himself proceeded..."?
"Stafford himself" is a no-no. At least for me. I mean, who else could he be?
True; but how to address the repetition of be/siege three times in ~20 words?
Ah. We now have one "besiege" and one "a second siege". Better?
  • Any examples of the "several minor nobles" who joined the English?
Too much detail. I could readily include some, but who cares?
Nobody cares until its too late.
  • cause them to call for reinforcements "force" might be better here, since it was clearly the last thing Philip wanted, or was able to satisfy (talking of which, tell the reader "although to no avail" perhaps?)
But they weren't "forced", I can think of several other things they could have done. Leaving aside the question of it not being supported by the sources. "to no avail" added.
  • "to increase their mobility," > "for increased mobility"?
I think that the first version spells it out a little better for the uninitiated.
And, presumably, the immobile.
  • Rather than continue a war of sieges he was determined to strike I suggest omitting "was", which changes the tense slightly.
Good point. Done.
  • This section could do with a couple of dates to anchor the chronology; suggest dating the battle of Bergerac here and Duke John's mustering his army (if that's different to the October date that follows).
The date of Bergerac is unknown, other than that it was in August, which I already give. I have added something for the muster, it would almost certainly have occurred over weeks or months. I have added the year at the start.
  • The few French troops not garrisoning fortifications immobilised themselves with sieges This is slightly ambiguous; were they occupied with besieging English-held castles or tied up in defending those besieged by the English?
Tweaked.
  • ...including their commander. Anyone we know?
Yes, but who cares. If I name checked every commander in every battle in the article it would bore the average reader silly. Want more detail? Read the next article down - Gascon campaign of 1345. Or the one on the actual battle. (They're all quite good. ;-) )
  • The surviving French from their field army rallied... Not just of the alliteration, but wouldn't "surviving French soldiers rallied..." be simpler and without loss?
Indeed. Done.
  • Introduce Perigaux as regional capital on its mention in the previous sentence.
Oops. Done.
  • "In March 1346..." > In March that year; or even, just March.
Done.
  • "On 2 April " > the following day.
I made this change, but it then read as if the two were connected, or the first caused the second. So I reverted. I take your point, but do you have any other suggestions for rephrasing? Otherwise what we have may be the least bad.
Fair point re causality.
  • In 1346 Edward again gathered... suggest adding the month si it can tie in with the chronology of the previous section.
Done.
  • and the existence of friendly ports in Brittany and Gascony slightly ambiguous to whom these ports are friendly; suggest "but with friendly ports in..." or some such.
Subtle. Done.
  • To guard against any possibility of an English landing in northern France, Philip VI relied on his powerful navy. This reliance was misplaced given the naval technology of the time; honestly, someone's going to slap a {{why}} template on that! Could you briefly explain the link between relying on a big navy and the failure of current technology? (I assume it means something like, however many ships one had they were never sufficient to patrol the entire channel and they had no other technological aids to do so?)
Fair. Tweaked.
  • at 747 ships?
I am missing your point. (Er, or are you suggesting that I add "at"? If so, in the name of grammar, why?)
  • Most of the population was massacred our own (your own!) excellent article suggests the figure was nearer half; perhaps "around half the pop was massacred..."
You shouldn't believe the tosh they write on Wikipedia. Good point. Half plus one? No? Changed to "Much".
  • Using "mi" abbreviation in the prose. Surely the main use spelt out in full and the abbrv used in the conversion? (I'm sure you're correct, but if you could link to the supporting MOS section I'll know for next time.)
I just a hack writer and simply bung numbers into the templates. But the MoS opines "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same measurement, provide a conversion in parentheses. Examples: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long. See {{convert}}"
Yeeeeas... I see miles is spelled out in full there, and only km abbreviated? (I assume length?) Odd disparity.
  • Note 1: indicate that the earldom of Lanc was the senior title to Derby.
A detail for his bio, not an article where he gets a walk on part.
  • Two days later... but the previous date mentioned was ten days before this one.
Tweaked.
  • "several times the size of the English force" to lose the duplicate "large/r".
The duplication is deliberate.
Hack wordsmithery!
Hey, it was got me more bronze stars than you could point a pointy thing at.
I don't believe that pits are weapons. Nor apparently does Area denial weapon, which does not mention them.
Meh. It literally says In medieval warfare, sharp and sturdy stakes were buried at the bottom of long lines of ditches, pointed end up diagonally, in order to prevent cavalry charges in a given area
That has to be the least helpful link I have ever included, but done.
Done. (Although personally I think it pushes WP:OVERLINK past breaking point.
Ah ha. Good spot. Lost in my boiling down. Removed.
  • "And burned several towns"?
Er, yes? (If you mean what I think you might, I have "burning town" two sentences later and wish to avoid "burnt ... towns ... burning town".
  • ...the normal port of disembarkation --> arrival? (And presumably departure?)
Possibly, but from a military PoV the former was what was important.
  • ...and convinced that Edward had finished...
Reading the whole sentence, that doesn't work.
  • French planning collapsed into chaos...or "had collapsed..."? It seems difficult to see how much less the main gauche could know about what the main droite was doing!
Ah, reread Clausewitz. I prefer it as is.
For this period, your bible would be Vegetius.
  • Your treatment of Neville's Cross seems, perhaps, slightly sparse compared to sat Crécy? I mean, it's true that WP:RANDY is far more likely to have heard of one rather than the other, but strategically they were on a par (WP:DUE, etc).
No they weren't! Where'd you get that from. The Scots were out for loot and would have buggered off come what may with a few monasteries more or less looted. Crécy was, well, Crécy. I think WP:DUE is about right. I have no particular objections to expanding Neville's a little, although the Scottish tactics were unimaginative to the point of there not being much to say, but "strategically they were on a par" - pah!
  • What probability of convincing a militarist that, by the late middle ages, a lawyer was important than a soldier?! :p
  • Is it just me, or does more than 1,000 long tons (1,000 t) read slightly...odd? We can't do anything about our coding, of course, but it looks bizarre! (although I see it ties in with my comment above re. abbreviations.)
If I were to start listing all the things in the MoS that looked odd to me ...
  • the French ability to assemble their army in a timely fashion had not improved since the autumn This is a classic line and worth mentioning in despatches.
And it is highly encyclopedic! :-)
Argh! Why? You think a reader won't know what it means? (An earlier reviewer made the same suggestion.)
  • entrepôt is linked for the third time here.
D'oh! Removed.
  • Is there anything you can link to regarding the fall of France in `1453, or at least that Lancastrian era of the war?
Not that I can readily see, this side of Easter-egging, but I am open to suggestions.
After an hour's ceaseless searching á la Lord Percy Percy, we do have Hundred Years' War, 1415–1453 as a standalone article.
And added.
  • Nice work as usual Gog, maintaining a simple, but effective WP:SUMMARY of the overarching narrative. ——Serial 18:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Serial Number 54129, just what it needed - a damn good kicking. (FAC has missed you.) All of your points addressed. Note that some responses are queries and some are "Hell, no!" Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay in getting back to you here Gog the Mild—I got a bit bogged down elsewhere, which involved a massively complex timeline and concomitant trolling at the WP:VPT, which was mildly distracting and hardly conducive to that Chimera we call a 'collegial editing environment'. I hope my replies here range from the usefully sardonic to the "Who the hell is this guy" :p and I look forward to supporting this article's promotion. Cheers! SN54129 14:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once more into the breach, etc. (I never did like those choices; what would a rational army do?) At last, some responses. @Who the hell is this guy Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Edmund, "those people over there, they're not fighting, they're just lying down". Happy to support. SN54129 06:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Gog the Mild It looks like you still haven't responded to Peacemaker's comments on 5 January and Serial's on 11 January. (t · c) buidhe 10:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Given four supports and source and image passes, could I have permission to nominate a further article? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead (t · c) buidhe 13:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to promote this, but I realized I have a nitpick that should be fixed first: "The English army is estimated by modern historians to have been some 10,000 strong". The problem with "modern historians" is that it is probably not verifiable that most or all modern historians agree; see WP:RS/AC. So I would rephrase this slightly to avoid that implication, it would be OK to write "The English army was about 10,000 strong" or something to that effect. (t · c) buidhe 14:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Changed.
  • You will have noticed that I have reverted your unilateral edit to the article. As this is at FAC, it would seem appropriate that the pros and cons of wording be discussed here, and that other reviewers have the opportunity to opine. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: can I ask what further needs doing with this one? It has had five supports and source and image passes for some time. I believe that Buidhe is recused, so perhaps Ian Rose or Hog Farm could have a look at it? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was gonna promote yesterday, but got exposed to COVID while traveling for work, so that threw things off a bit. Hog Farm Talk 18:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

This article at first glance looks neat and detailed! If my comments are resolved, I'll strike for support. GeraldWL 09:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 01:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* "English offensives in 1345–1347"-- "English offensives from 1345–1347" sounds more suitable to me
I disagree. "from" reads unnaturally to me. Do you have style guide support for your suggestion?
Done, but at second mention in the lead. I am concerned that linking the second word of the article, given that this one has no bolding, will mislead a reader into thinking that is the title of the article. I am open to being persuaded that this concern is misplaced.
I can understand your view, but I don't think readers will at all think Offensive (military) is the main subject of this article if it's linked at the beginning of the article. I've seen links in the first or second or third words in an article; they look fine. For example, the article I helped improve to FL (List of Latvian submissions for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film) has the link to Latvia in the very beginning. Doesn't seem like a problem at all.
  • "which was spectacularly successful." Why "spectacular"?
OK. Now linked at first mention.
At root, because that is my paraphrasing of the scholarly consensus. I can provide quotes of the sources in question if you would like.
Well if it's scholarly consensus then I'm fine with it, but I think it's that information on the war was collected and scholars regard it as spectacular; in that case I prefer "which scholars regard as spectacular."
That's not how Wikipedia works, or every sentence of every article would start with "It is the scholarly consensus that ..." Instead one writes in Wikipedia's voice and uses the cites to support it. As you are querying its use in the lead I have expanded a little in the main article here to support it - including using direct attribution to the words of leading scholars. If you think I have stepped the wrong side of summary style, let me know.
  • "became known as Edward III's annus mirabilis (year of marvels)." annus mirabillis mustn't be bolded, as there's an article on that phrase, thus it must be wikilinked instead.
Perhaps you could discuss this with reviewers FunkMonk, who suggested above that it be bolded, and Serial Number 54129, who also opines on this, to see if you can reach consensus. I am easy either way
Funk's comment was "Might almost be tempting to bold "Edward III's annus mirabilis" in the intro then, as I guess this is the article that covers that as a subject too?" which is definitely false as there is a separate article that covers the term. Serial's comment was "Should annus mirabilis be bolded? It is not, later on; suggest the [undefined] Error: {{Lang}}: no text (help) template." Please don't take my language as harsh, but I don't think Serial checked Wikipedia for "annus mirabillis". So I think it should definitely be unbolded italicized, then linked. FunkMonk, Serial Number 54129, thoughts? GeraldWL 17:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the issue, the year in question was termed his annus mirabilis, so in the context of this article, that is part of the scope. I am well aware that annus mirabilis is probably a more general term, but here it has a specific meaning. FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeahhh I can see the foreignitalic point, although I'm still firm on unbolding. Sadly I still don't understand the "specific meaning" you're referring to, Funk; perhaps philosophically but this is an encyclopedia and not everyone has the same philosophical depth. GeraldWL 17:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd rather have argued that the entirety of Edward III's annus mirabilis was to be bolded, to be specific, but it's certainly not an issue I feel strongly about. FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't just opine, I porcupine. IMHO, it's nothing to do with whether we have an article, but whether we bold uncommon non-English terms, to wit: we don't. MOS:FOREIGNITALIC is perfectly clear that Latin terms are italicised, and further suggests use of the {{lang}} template to do so, rather than ''...''. I don't know what me checking—or rather, falling to check!—Wikipedia for "annus mirabillis" has got to with anything  :) thanks for the ping Gog, sup?
Having said that, I've already supported, and I won't be withdrawing that, obvs, as it's the broader picture, etc. SN54129 17:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All mentions, bolded and not, are in italics and in lang templates and always have been. This is, I hope, uncontroversial. On the bolding, I am happy to go with a best out of three vote. With some trepidation I also invite reviewers Tim riley and Peacemaker67 to opine. FunkMonk, I am taking your preference as for bolding; Gerald Waldo Luis, yours as against; Serial and others - ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I seldom pass by an opportunity to carp or cavil at FAC, but even so it simply never occurred to me that bold type might be wanted here, and as you are kind enough to invite my opinion it is that I really don't think bolding would be helpful to our readers. Tim riley talk 18:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Tim. I don't understand why it's both such an issue and so easily confusable  :) Still, it wouldn't be Wikipedia without! SN54129 18:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nays have it. Debolded. Thank you all. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following a series of disagreements between Philip VI of France (r. 1328–1350) and Edward III of England (r. 1327–1377), on 24 May 1337 Philip's Great Council in Paris"-- suggest adding a comma after "1337" for more natural reading flow.
Um, I have a firm position in the Comma wars debate, and adding a comma where you suggest, to me, rather than improve the flow, looks as if one is recording a speech defect. I am aware of the fad for inserting commas after dates, it is not a style used in this article.
  • "and whenever an English army campaigned on the continent during the first eight years of the war it operated in northern France"-- same reason, add comma after "war"
See above, I would also refer you to grammarian Lynn Truss [3].
  • "In 1340, Edward laid formal claim to the Kingdom of France"-- Link Kingdom of France
I am quite sure that this is MOS:OVERLINK, but nevertheless done.
I don't think it's overlink really, since readers with zero knowledge of history might confuse the Kingdom of France with the current France.
I think you are missing the point of OVERLINK, but the point is moot.
  • Suggest linking the image captions of Edward and Philip
Done.
  • "William, Earl of Northampton, would lead a small force to Brittany, a slightly larger force would proceed to Gascony"-- remove redundant comma after "Northampton". Change the comma after "Brittany" to a semicolon.
It is not redundant, the two commas enclose a parenthetical phrase. A comma is more appropriate here than a semi-colon, IMO.
  • "who sailed for Gascony in February with an advance force." Advance or advanced?
Advance. As in advance guard. Or see [4]].

More later.

Hi Gerald Waldo Luis and many thanks for dropping by. I have addressed your initial batch of comments above and await with interest your further thoughts. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and thanks for clarifying some stuff; I have to admit I'm an ESL and not much of a war geek, so forgive if I mess up. Anyways, second batch.
That's fine. All well-intentioned comments are welcome. Either I can easily respond to them - in which case fine - or I can't - in which case you may have picked up a real issue.
  • "while the King and his council"-- I suggest removing "his" from the link, as it suggests that the link covers the King's council, when it's about a term referring to king councils in general.
If with your second point you are suggesting that the Wikilink should include the definite article I believe that would be contrary to the MoS. Re your first point, I don't understand. The council in question is Edward's personal or "Royal" council and so "his" seems completely appropriate. It was a meeting of his counsellors, in council, to advise, or counsel, him.
It's basically like this. The link (Curia regis) is "the name given to councils of advisers and administrators in medieval Europe who served kings, including kings of France, Norman kings of England and Sicily, kings of Poland and the kings and queens of Scotland." In this article, "the King" refers to only one king. My concern is that if the wikilink encompasses "his council", readers would think that the link's subject is the council of this king, when curia regis refers to an array of kings, as well as queen. Although if the MoS has no problems with it, then I'll let it pass.
Wikipedia is, of course, an unreliable source. If a reader understood the phrase "the King and his council" to refer to the council of just this king, a reader would understand correctly. If the Wikilink obfuscates this, then I could remove it?
I am aware WP is not an RS; I was just concerned that the definition of a council in that article would be not as what readers thought it was. So if it's "his council" then readers would think that the link is about the King's council, as in just about the council of the King discussed in this article, but then the link is about king councils in general. If it's "his council", then readers would know that Curia regis does not only refer to the council of the king discussed in this article, but councils in general. GeraldWL 03:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Done.
  • "of the south-west front on 8 August." I believe "south-west" does not have to be hyphenated, right? Or is it a must in the English variant this article is written in?
Nothing to do with variants. You are quite right, but like any other compound modifier they are hyphenated when appearing before a term. (As in "much small-scale fighting continued".)
  • "and to cause them to call for reinforcements – to no avail." The dash could be easily be replaced with a more encyclopedic comma, with a "but" after that. I feel like dashes are generally used in such cases to evoke a dramatic feeling, something you would see in nonfiction books or novels.
I disagree. A dash is a perfectly normal piece of punctuation. Commas are also used in works of fiction. Dashes are much used in encyclopedias, dictionaries and scholarly works.
Oh, alright then. Guess it was just me new to this usage of dashes, at least within Wikipedia.
  • "Monchamp near Condom"-- well that Cathedral does look like a... condom...
The prophylactic device has to be named after something. Or, in this case, somewhere. (Actually that is probably an urban myth.)
  • "such as a team of 24 miners.––" Why the dashes?
A typo, removed. Well spotted.
  • "In early October a very large detachment"-- add comma after "October"
See above. This article does not use the convention of inserting a comma after a mention of a period of time. Proponents of it would write, and, I assume, say "Today, I ate breakfast"; I would write and say "Today I ate breakfast". Either is acceptable. (Much as I itch to change the former usage when copy editing.)
  • "After a night march Derby attacked the French camp"-- add comma after "march"
See above.
  • "a nephew of the Pope"-- "a nephew of Pope Clement VI". And add a comma after that.
A comma inserted before "and" is known as a serial or Oxford comma. It is, under the MoS a permissible practice, but not a required one. The MoS states "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent".
Second batch of comments responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the English no longer having access to a port in Flanders, but with friendly ports in Brittany and Gascony"-- Shouldn't the "having" be "have"?
No. ("having" is used as the present participle.)
  • "His army marched south through the Cotentin" --> "His army marched south through the Cotentin Peninsula"
Done. You don't like native usages, do you?
I have gone with what the sources universally use, and what I am used to seeing. I don't insist that this is "correct" nor easier for a reader. Hence my changing it regardless.
Ehhhh it's not necessarily I dislike, I just thought using an English version (where an official one exists) would be simpler especially for those not native to the language. It's fine though if you don't want.
  • Link River Seine
  • "reaching it on the 7th." I think you can replace "reaching it" with "arriving" for more natural reading flow.
Done.
  • "The French army was very large for the period, and several times larger than the English force." I think you can drop the "and"; that way, "several times larger than the English force" can act as an emphasis to how the army was "very large for the period"
Done.
  • "They continued to devastate the land, and set several towns on fire"-- I don't think the comma here is needed.
If the sentence ended at "fire", you would be correct. As it continues with "including Wissant ..." "and" is needed.
  • "It was also close to the border of Flanders; which was nominally part of France"-- semicolon or colon?
Changed to a comma.
  • "officials at all levels of the Chambre des Comptes (the French treasury)"-- can't we just use the English name Court of Auditors?
Because that's not what it was. If you don't like using its correct name, how about 'officials at all levels of the French treasury (the Chambre des Comptes)'?
Nah it's fine, sorry I just read the link title and thought that way.
This batch of comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gerald Waldo Luis, just to let you know that I am ready for the next batch of comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gog, apologies, me and my family were pretty busy yesterday in preparation for Chinese New Year: new clothes, decor, food, so forth so forth. Anyways here's my last batch of comments. Damn its been fun skimming through this article. GeraldWL 07:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These included French and mercenary Italian galleys and French merchant ships"-- two and-s which makes it confusing for me at first read. Suggest changing the second and to "as well as".
  • I agree on linking long tons, but tonne I think is a relatively common measurement and linking it would be overlink. Suggest just changing the "t" to "tonne".
  • "Edward repopulated Calais with English, and a few Flemings." Should it be "the English people" or is "English" just fine?
Just "English" is fine. Adding "people" (no definite article) is not wrong, would would only be used if you wished to clarify that the town was not repopulated with eg horses or budgerigars, so in this context would read (very) oddly.
  • "Two cardinals acting as papal emissaries"-- "acting" sounds like they're fake emissaries; are they? If so I suggest using the clearer "forging" or "faking".
No, acting is the correct formulation. As in the current UN Convention on Special Missions which uses the word 20 times. Eg the title of Article 14 is "Authority to act on behalf of the special mission", or in "Use of terms" there is "the “head of a special mission” is the person charged by the sending State with the duty of acting in that capacity", or

in that capacity" or "members of the special mission acting on behalf of the mission".

Done.
  • Aftermath section looks just fine, altho I suggest removing "end" from the link. So "did not end until 1453" --> "did not end until 1453". This is because the sentence consists of "did not end" and "until 1453", not "did not" and "end until 1453". If I'm even making sense lmao--
No, that kinda makes sense, but I am not sure that it is mostly helpful to a reader. "until 1435" linking to until 1453 seems a bit WP:EASTEREGGY to me.
Seems WP:OVERLINK to me, but done.
  • Sources look good.
  • Images are fine, although I would prefer a more relevant photo for the Fall of Calais one, as the current is just for decoration purposes.
True enough. It seems to me better than nothing, but any suggestions for a better one would be gratefully received.
Hi Gerald Waldo Luis, that is excellent stuff and thank you. I think that I have addressed all of your comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem man, and the article looks more fit for FA now for me. Technically there are a couple of stuff you missed in my comms, but I rereviewed them and at its root there's no problem with those. Support. GeraldWL 01:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: thanks for the support. You are quite right, I missed a couple - apologies. Seine mow linked. Linking tonnes - that is done by the template, which is very widely used - and I am loath to mess with it unless pressed very hard. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2022 (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/Hundred_Years%27_War,_1345–1347/archive1&oldid=1071502185"