Talk:Philip III of Navarre/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: HaEr48 (talk · contribs) 05:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will take a look at this. HaEr48 (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General

Overall, this article is very close to fulfilling GA criteria. It is well written, flows nicely and the dynastic background is explained properly as context. It is in line with relevant manual of styles, verifiable with highly academic sources (I've spot checked some and they check out). No copyvio, neutrality or OR issue found. It covers major events of the subject's life. Stable. Images have appropriate copyright status. HaEr48 (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specific

I do have specific feedback below, please take a look. Feel free to disagree but please explain the reason if you do so.

"the nephew of Philip's father": How about "Philip's first cousin", so that you don't need to do mental arithmetic?
Their union was not consummated until 1324: How about mentioning their ages at this time, as the previous sentence talks about "age difference" and Joan's birth date is not explicitly mentioned in the article?
he direct male line of the House of Capet came to an end: Isn't Philip VI also a male line descendant of Philip III of France?
"Except for a brief visit of Joan's father for his coronation in 1307, this was the longest a Navarrese monarch had resided in the kingdom since 1274" : How can that brief visit be an exception vs Philip & Joan's stay that lasted more than a year?
- Also, the coronation stay (at least March 1329 - September 1331) seemed to be longer?
" They were praised for their active involvement in the administration despite their absences": Can you describe who praised them or where these praises are found? As per WP:AWW and {{by whom}}
with the King commanding the fifth: To disambiguate, please say either "the Navarrese King" or "the French King".
Paragraph about Hundred Years' War: Are there individual battles that can be mentioned or linked? Is Siege of Tournai (1340) the same as the "relief of Tournai" currently mentioned by the paragraph?
I found some more details about this protection here. Apparently twenty men were hired by the treasury to guard the Muslim quarters so that Philip's troops travelling from France to Granada would not harm the Navarrese Muslims. I think this detail is interesting and relevant to add to the article - what do you think?
Maybe briefly mention the outcome of the Siege of Algeciras?

-- HaEr48 (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Mental arithmetic avoied!
  Joan is said to be four years old upon Louis X's death in 1316. I may have wanted to avoid writing too much about the sex of an 18-year-old and a 12-year-old, but I suppose it can be done.
  Philip VI was a male-line descendant of Philip III, but a distinction is usually made between the House of Capet, said to be extinct since 1328, and the Capetian dynasty, still extant and reigning.
  You are right about Philip III and Joan II's stay in Navarre. I have revisited the source and rephrased it.
  Yes, it's a good idea to specify who praised them.
  I assume "the King" is Philip VI of France, but I would like Srnec to confirm because he wrote that part. The same goes for individual battles.
  I feel that the protection of Navarrese Muslims is given enough attention.
  Done!
  Thank you for this review, HaEr48. I forgot I had even nominated this article! Surtsicna (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: Could you comment on the above questions about which king commanded the fifth battaile, and about linking of individual battles? HaEr48 (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I also added links to the sieges of Cambrai and Tournai, but I had to add a new source, since the cited page in Sumption does not mention Philip's presence on that campaign (although he was indeed there, as I believe Froissart attests). It mentions his reinforcement of the garrison prior to the siege. Even Sumption's account of the campaign (pp. 349–58) does not mention either the king of Navarre or Scotland, which I find surprising. Srnec (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

@Surtsicna and Srnec: Thank you for your responses and clarification. I'm happy now to pass this as GA. I hope my review was useful. HaEr48 (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]