Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Crécy/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 24 July 2019 [1].

Battle of Crécy

edit
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 14th-century battle in which Edward III, leading an Anglo-Welsh army across northern France, brought the much larger French army under Philip VI to battle. Famously the French suffered a humiliating defeat, largely due to the English use of longbows. A contemporary described the hand-to-hand combat which ensued as "murderous, without pity, cruel, and very horrible". I have done quite a bit of work on this over the last couple of months, and, I think, consulted most of the up to date sources. No doubt it is as usual riddled with flawed prose, MoS breaches and fails to be readily comprehensible; I would be grateful if you could point out the specifics of these. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Suggest elaborating on the caption of the battle map to indicate what the various designs mean
Good idea. Done.
  • File:English_gun_used_at_Crecy.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Battle_of_Crécy,_26_August_1346.png
The first works fine for me. It is on Wayback Machine so there shouldn't be a problem. (I added the page number while I was checking.)
Link updated for the second.
  • File:Lazzaro_Tavarone-Balestrieri_genovesi.jpg should include the original date and author if known.
The "File information" names the fresco's artist. It gives the date as "16th or 17th century"; some basic research can't nail it down any further, but it seems good enough for our purposes. Is anything further needed?


Nikkimaria (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Many thanks as always for looking these over. Your points addressed. Although a couple of things you flagged up as issues didn't seem to be issues to me, so I may well have the wrong end of the stick. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I wonder if you feel that I have satisfactorily addressed your comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

edit

Another splendid instalment in this continuing series. A few minor points on the prose – nothing of any great consequence:

  • Lead
    • "and by the time they received the French charges they had lost much of their impetus" – from the main text I gather that the second "they" means the French, but that is by no means clear here.
Tweaked. Any better.
Perfect, me judice Tim riley talk 20:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for over two centuries" – I mention this with some diffidence, as there is no logical rule that I can see for the convention – some might say superstition – that this should be "more than two centuries". I adhere to the convention myself (Froissart and I were at school together, and my use of language may be rather old-fashioned) and I mention it here only for you to accept or reject as you think fit, here and at "over 100 French towns", "over 700 vessels", "Over 5,000 French soldiers", "over 500 men-at-arms", and "over 2,200 heraldic coats" later in the article.
Article is now Froissart-compliant.
  • Background
  • "Edward was not only morally obliged to succor his vassal" – we've been here before. Whether it was a succor punch or an all day succor you mean "succour".
Changed
  • Prelude
  • "Bethune" – no aigu?
Aigued.
  • "River Somme" – duplicate blue link.
Second mention unlinked.
  • Opposing forces
  • "The English army mainly comprised English and Welsh soldiers, along with some allied Breton and Flemish troops and a few German mercenaries." – You've told us more or less the same thing already.
Oops. Thank you. First iteration removed.
  • "These numbers have been described as unrealistic and exaggerated by historians" – I imagine the historians were doing the describing rather than the exaggerating, but that isn't what this says.
"exaggerated by unrealistic historians"? No? How about "as exaggerated and unrealistic by historians"?
That would do, but you might even change passive to active and say that historians describe the numbers and u and e. Just a thought. Tim riley talk 20:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone with "These numbers are described by historians as exaggerated and unrealistic"
  • "the major trading city of Genoa " – this is the third mention of Genoa. The description as a major trading centre might be better at the first mention.
Ah. Yes. Done.
  • "This made it difficult for the French to outflank them" – I'm not clear who the "them" is: the left/right flanks or the whole English army? Or perhaps that amounts to the same thing?
"them" refers to both, ie the two flanks referred to in the previous sentence. Would it be clearer if I semi-coloned the two sentences?
  • "Having decisively defeated a large French detachment two days before, morale was high." – Dangling participle. Morale didn't defeat the French.
Is my change sufficient to undangle it?
  • "the French van" – as you have linked terms that seem to me arguably common enough not to need linking (sacking, knights, mercenaries, chronicle) I think you might consider linking "van". I don't suppose many of your readers will find themselves with a mental picture of a Citroën, but even so...
Every one of those is a term which I have been specifically asked to link in previous reviews (of other articles). "Van" expanded to 'vanguard' and added to the list
  • "vanguard" – showing my ignorance, but is this different from the van? If so another blue link wouldn't hurt, if one can be found.
Slightly rephrased to avoid a possible misreading - thanks for making me look hard at this.
  • "...Philip, or because too many of the large number of French knights kept pressing forward and the battle commenced against Philip's wishes. Philip's ..." – rather a lot of Philips here. Perhaps make the second or third "his"?
The second swapped out. I think that it reads OK with the two remaining.
  • Battle
  • "their sacred battle banner, the oriflamme" – is "sacred" used in a figurative sense or was it somehow consecrated to sanctity by the church?
Good question. As in repeatedly described as sacred in several RSs. To pick one not used in the article, see pp 15-16 of this. Sounds religious to me. Why?
  • "No prisoners would be taken" – not even King Edward, if they got hold of him? Was this normal? Cf the statement at ref 123.
A contemporary: "it was not lawful for anyone, on penalty of death, to take any prisoners"; a modern historian: "The unfurling of the Oriflamme was taken by the English as a sign that a legal state of guerre mortelle (a war to the death) was in force; under such a state of war, it was legitimate to take no prisoners." No if's, no but's. At Poitiers, a decade later, one of three chroniclers who go into in detail recorded that the French king made a specific exemption for the Black Prince. (The other two state that no prisoners were to be taken.) There are, so far as I am aware no sources, contemporary or modern, that suggest any exceptions were ordered at Crecy.
I have added a "after the battle" to "the next day" to clarify any apparent contradiction.
  • "a range of about 80 metres (260 ft)." – metric before imperial here but t'other way round earlier.
I was going with the original sources, but as the odd one out is "approximately", I think that I can tweak it.
  • "had two horses killed from underneath him" – the "from" seems a bit odd.
It is a common way of describing this, and the phraseology of the (1998) source. But changed as you suggest.
  • "although it is unclear as to why – the "as to" strikes me as superfluous.
True. Removed.

That's my meagre haul of quibbles. I've found this article as enjoyable to review as its predecessors. Tim riley talk 14:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your usual close reading and insightful criticisms Tim. Your points all addressed. See what you think. I am pleased that you enjoyed it: hopefully you could smell the sweat of the horses; hear the twang of the bowstrings. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First rate article. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Very pleased to support. Tim riley talk 16:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

I guess I found my new target. <eagle eyes activated>

  • reached the Seine, 12 miles (20 km) south of Rouen This sentence says "12 miles" is 20 km. However, this sentence The army was tired from a 12-mile (19 km) march says that "12 miles" is 19 km.
Good spot. A stray sigfig left on. Corrected.
  • Speaking of which I think we can remove the second "19 km" here.
Done.
  • 10 years to master and could discharge up to ten arrows per minute well over 300 metres (980 ft) This sentence uses 300 metres as its primary units but we're still talking about medieval France and England. So, shouldn't English units be primary units? The sentence after this one uses also metric units as its primary units but the units are related to modern-day science so I guess it is okay.
Well now; if I switched primary units in consecutive sentences, wouldn't you be telling me that I am being inconsistent? And confusing the reader.
  • Well not really. I mean by WP:UNITS all articles related to the UK, U.S. or Liberia should have English units as primary units. I think sentences should also be included. Depending on which country we're talking about, well that was what Sturm or BB said to me in their ships' articles.
WP:UNITS says "In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except that". I don't see that any of the exceptions apply (as, for example, they do for distances measured in miles) so my usage would seem to be correct[?]
They do. They think that metres are things that measure electricity usage. So I had thought that this permitted their use as a primary unit for UK related articles. However, checking the MoS I have discovered that this is not the case. Live and learn.
  • Hmm good question Gog, I went to London last summer and I saw in the city English units together with metric ones. I saw square feet, ounces, miles, mph and yards. Are these units still with used in the UK? I mean I went to a restaurant and the menu over there was is ounces in a store they used lbs and quarts? Hack my Google Maps even switched from kilometres to miles same with km/h and mph. The UK decided to use metric units in the 60s which after almost 60 years still the imperial units use. It was like in the US, if MoS says we should use metric units with some exceptions to the primary units over there then we should use them. But couldn't that make confusion to our British readers if they barely use metric units? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: The situation is, typically for the Brits, confused. Partly it depends on your age and how educated and cosmopolitan you are. Some things are universally imperial: the ones in the MoS exceptions. (Except that there are exceptions - I won't bore you.) Pounds and ounces and kilos and milligrams are probably about equally used. Most people use feet and inches to indicate their own height, but mm to indicate small distances. Almost no one knows what a quart is. Things are, very slowly, moving towards metric. So we do what the MoS says, regardless of what we are used to, and you make sure that I get the right conversions in, so everyone has an idea of what is being communicated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that about a third of the UK population use yards and feet and are shaky on metres; a third use metres and cm and are shaky on yards; and a third treat them as roughly interchangeable. (And just don't ask what Brexit might do to all of this!) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I can wait until Halloween to see the results what Brexit might do. I do have passions except if "someone" tries to extend the Brexit once again. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • iron and approximately 4 metres (13 ft) long Same as above.
I don't get this one. 4 metres is 13 feet, to the nearest foot; I only use it once; and am consistent in my use of primary units. Could you elaborate for my simple brain? Thanks.
  • that on their own they outnumbered the English army.[63][61] Suggest switching the citations in numerical order.
Done.
  • as were their reserves supplies of ammunition.[102][103][93] Same as above.
Done.
  • whether they inflicted significant casualties.[108][101] Same as above.
Done.
  • casualties were very low.[139][76][140] Same as above.
Done.
  • The battle was reported to the English Parliament This is odd to me. I could remember the day you said to me "I don't think that "parliament" is a proper noun, even in this context. I have checked two modern sources and they both have "English parliament", with a lower case p. So I propose leaving it." in the AR of Siege of Berwick (1333) after I asked you to capitalise "Parliament". May I ask you why is the parliament here capitalised?
Would you accept that there is no requirement to be consistent between articles? No? I thought not. My mistake. Thanks for picking it up. Corrected.

Part two

  • The Battle of Crécy (26 August 1346), also spelled Cressy, took You mean spelt?
Changed.
  • large force of French mercenary crossbowmen were routed by Shouldn't it be "large force of French mercenary crossbowmen was routed by"?
It should. Thank you EE.
  • devastating some of the richest land in France You mean lands?
No, I don't. But I am happy to change it if you prefer.
  • A Medieval image of Puilip IV seated In alt in the File:Phil6france.jpg image little typo of Philip.
Fixed.
  • Paris consisted of some 8,000 men-at-arm You mean men-at-arms?
I do.
  • During the morning of the battle Comma after battle here.
I do not normally follow the comma after time periods convention. (Largely American in my experience.) But done anyway.
  • sloping hillside, broken by copses and Typo of corpses.
No. Copse: A small wood, especially one cultivated for coppicing.
  • cavalry, and set up several primitive gunpower weapons You mean gunpowder?
I quite like "gunpower", but yes, I did.
  • with more than 500 men-at-arms was marching You mean were?
No. It was the Count of Savoy who was marching.
  • no prisoners be taken; outnumbered as You mean are?
No, that wouldn't make sense. I could change it to 'no prisoners were to be taken', but I don't want to. "no prisoners be taken" is a perfectly acceptable usage, eg see the over 4,300 exact matches on Google.
  • now mounted, routed and pursued for miles Remove for here.
Why? Both are correct, both mean much the same thing, but to my eye removing "here" makes the phrasing clumsier and less readily comprehensible.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eagle Eyes, appreciated. Points all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks CPA-5. Addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ooo! Some very good points. Thanks CPA-5. All addressed. (Not all agreed with.) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: I wonder if you have come to a view as to whether you wish to support, oppose, or stand neutral on this nomination? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I wonder, do you know me enough Gog? You'd probably know my answer. All my comments are addressed with positive or negative results. Only my British primary measurement comments weren't addressed and got a lot of counter-comments in a discussion we have. But I do not reckon we shan't have a sequel to our discussion here. I understand the situation where the Britons lie, they're changing really slow to metric units. Which means for now metres are part of their society. I do not have any comments anymore so I'll give you a solid support Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

edit
  • I would link "Flemish" in the lead/body, maybe "Breton" also. "Welsh" are linked, after all, so not linking the others seems inconsequent.
Flemish links to the modern language. The only Wikilink on 14th century Flanders is County of Flanders which I had linked Flanders to a few words later. I have linked Flemish to County of Flanders at first mention in the main article, and Bretons to Duchy of Brittany on similar reasoning.
I thought about a link to Flemish people. But its not really important. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile, Derby led a whirlwind – I know of course who Derby is, but only from your other excellent articles. You should still link and introduce him here, though.
Apologies. The GAN reviewer wanting a couple of paragraphs and I forgot that those remaining weren't self contained. Rereading, I am not sure that he needs a lot of introduction, being very "off-stage", so I have given his title and linked him. Sufficient, do you think?
  • Philip again sent orders to Duke John of Normandy insisting that he abandon the siege of Aiguillon – not sure about the use of "again" here. It implies that he had send these orders before already, but this was not mentioned in the text, although it sounds as it would refer to such an earlier statement.
Ditto. Expanded to, I hope, make sense.
  • Philip reached the River Somme a day's march ahead of Edward – Here I miss some important information: Where is this French army coming from? Was it all freshly assembled in Rouen (as previously mentioned) or was this the army of the Duke John of Normandy (but now commanded by Philip?), or both?
Again, removed at request of the GAN reviewer and inadequately tidied up by me. I have now inserted a fair bit on the non-battle of Paris. See if you think that it is unnecessary detail considering what the subject of the article is.
Thank you Jens. This is an important battle in English historiography and I wanted to give it the works. You have picked up some significant weaknesses - thank you. Could you see what you think of my fixes. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks for the additions; I think that they are not too detailed but really help to get the necessary background. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Praemonitus

edit

Support: It's enjoyable read and appears to be of FA quality. I found nothing to complain about. Nicely done. Praemonitus (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Praemonitus. Thank you for the support and the kind comment. I appreciate both. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links: all links to sources are working
  • Formats
  • Ref 48 requires pp.
  • Ref 63 page range should be standardised to 268–269
  • Ref 67 requires pp.
  • Ref 127 requires pp.
  • Fowler should precede Froissart in alphabetical list of sources
  • Likewise, Magier et al should precede Mallett
  • Bennett 1994: standardise location to "Woodbridge, Suffolk". Likewise Kelly 1998
  • Rogers 2000: convert "Woodbridge UK" to "Woodbridge, Suffolk"
Those were all pretty sloppy of me. Apologies. Now corrected.
  • What is the status of the listed "primary sources"? They do not appear to be cited – are they part of "Further reading"?
These are the contemporary and near-contemporary sources which form the basis of most of the modern scholarship on the subject. Such lists are common in scholarly works. I realise that this is not a Wikipedia requirement, but I inherited them and it seemed helpful to leave them in. They are not "Further reading" as such, and mixing them in with the modern works there would in my opinion confuse rather than aid a reader. If pushed I will delete them, but that would be a shame.
  • Quality and reliability: The sources appear to be comprehensive and authoritative, and to meet the required criteria for quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thank you for taking the time to look at this. Apologies for the sloppiness of some of the formatting. All of your points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: I wonder if you feel that I have satisfactorily addressed your comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to accept the treatment adopted. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query to coordinators

edit

@FAC coordinators: I assume that we are at the tending the wounded and counting the prisoners stage. If I am correct in this, I wonder if I might have permission to nominate my next one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, sorry I didn't get to this sooner -- pls feel free to stat a new nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:07, 10 July 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_Crécy/archive1&oldid=907743598"