Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Bergerac

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Bergerac

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Featured article candidates/Battle of Bergerac/archive1

Yet another Hundred Years' War article aspiring to A class; yet another from the neglected Gascon theatre. After nine years of expensive stalemate on all fronts the Earl of Derby arrived in Gascony. 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, so it probably needs a good kicking from some enthusiastic reviewers. Gog the Mild (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — pass

No concerns with any of the sources; reliability assumed
Additional sources not found
No source checks done because nominator is experienced b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 06:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe

As with the other article, the "Background" section seems disproportionately long. Recommend cutting back on detail.

Well now. I agree that, at the least, it is pushing at the upper limit. On a quick skim I can't see where I can usefully chop it back. Could you give some time to chew this over and think about it - I don't want to shoot from the hip, as it were. Feel free to withhold your support until we have it settled.

@Buidhe: Do you mean the two paragraphs immediately under Background; or all six, ie including the Gascony section? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not have a "Gascony" section. However, in my opinion the "Background" section of this article is not as disproportionate as the one in Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346, for which the entire background section, including "Gascony", should be reduced. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 17:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Lead pruned. Better? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"English controlled Gascony"—shouldn't this be hyphenated?

It should. Done.

"South western France"—southwestern France?

I will make a wild guess that you write using US English. ;-) This - two words, no hyphen - is the standard British English version and is common elsewhere, outside the US. I offer in evidence: South Western Railway; South Western School District; South Western Highway; South Western Railway zone. These are each from a different continent - to establish common usage, including one from the US.

Ok, learned something new!

"to modern historians praising his generalship as:" suggest briefly attributing these quotes with the name of the historian

Yes, of course - it's an MoS requirement. Hmm. How I would normally do this really messes with the flow of the prose. What do you think of the edit I have just made?

Looks fine, because the historians are already mentioned in text or just afterwards.

"Derby's four month campaign of 1345 has been described" recommend "Griblit describes Derby's four-month campaign of 1935 as"

Quite right. Done.

Hi Buidhe. Many thanks for picking this up. And I get a two-fer! Your points addressed above.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Background reduced by 20%. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's definitely an improvement. I still think that some of the detail may not be necessary to understand this article, but I'll wait and see what other reviewers have to say. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 20:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Buidhe, can you just confirm whether you support promotion to A-Class? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All images are correctly licensed. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 20:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

I guess there aren't much people here. Let's say I'll join this nomination.

@CPA-5: Thanks. Possibly they have had enough of the Hundred Years' War?

Part of the Gascon campaign of the Hundred Years War shouldn't the Hundred Years War be Hundred Years' War?

It should. Done.

Here is the standerd one Gog Among their cargos were more than 100,000,000 litres of wine. no US quarts?

Done.

Another standerd one The duty levied by the English crown on wine from Bordeaux English Crown?

Done.

Casseneuill in the Agenais; Monchamp near Condom; and Montcuq, a strong but strategically insignificant castle south of Bergerac. link Casseneuill, Agenais, Monchamp, Condom and Montcuq.

Done.

Remove the Montcuq in the sentence It would also force the lifting of the siege of the nearby allied castle of Montcuq and sever communications between French forces north and south of the Dordogne.

Done.

"superb and innovative tactician" {Rogers); What's this about the Rogers?

Drat. Well spotted. Done.

"the first successful land campaign of... the Hundred Year's War". I guess another typo of the Hundred Years' War.

Grr! Done.

Ref 19 is all little bit weird there is (are) no(t) page number(s). It looks like a book because it has an ISBN.

It's an online encyclopedia behind a paywall. I must have forgotten to access the page numbers when I accessed it. I can't be bothered to pay again, so will replace it with another source.

That's anything what I could find. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. You are a credit to Wikipedia, the work rate and accuracy you maintain. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day CPA-5, can you just confirm whether you support promotion to A-Class? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: and @Peacemaker67: Yes, I confirm my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

No DABs, external links OK
Link Southampton, Falmouth, men-at-arms, longbowmen (including in the lede), archer

Done. Except longbowmen isn't in the lead.

Neither are Southampton and Falmouth. You still need to link men-at-arms and longbowmen in the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: I am making the assumption that by "lede" you mean infobox, in which case, done. If you don't then could you explain very carefully for me, I am having a slow evening. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<blush>Nope, totally my mistake.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standardize how you hyphenate your ISBNs

Done

Very nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sturmvogel 66, thanks for stopping by, and for the copy edit. Points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

I reviewed this article for GA and found it interesting, instructive and evidently authoritative. Looking at it now I could do without the clunky false title "Modern historian Clifford Rogers", and I think "few of the common soldiers were offered the opportunity to surrender" could be more explicitly phrased, but these are minor points, and on revisiting the article I remain impressed. I admit to knowing nothing of Mil Hist A reviewing, but if this article were up for FA (and I hope it will be in the not-too-distant) I should be supporting it. I hope this brief comment is helpful. Tim riley talk 23:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thank you Tim. Gah! Another false title. I have stopped doing that, or at least cut right down, but my youthful indiscretions return to haunt me. The surrender bit is a bit too cute; I have reworded. Hopefully it will be at FAC soon, when I will probably be imposing on your goodwill again. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Tim riley, the Milhist A-Class criteria are here, and are pitched at being close to the Featured criteria. I'm going to take your comments as a support for promotion to A-Class. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that steer, Peacemaker. I have looked at the criteria and I am happy to support the present A-class candidacy. I hope to support at FAC in due course but that is for another day. Tim riley talk 23:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.