Talk:Siege of Calais (1346–1347)

French Army

Shouldn't the French Army and Navy be included in the strength statistics? Some estimates put the French relieving army at 50,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.29.71 (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

CE during June 2013 GOCE Blitz

The CE needed is mostly gramatical simplification for smooth reading and clarification of antecedents and references for the non-expert readers and those whose first language is not American English. Comments welcome.

Consider this thing rather thin. Not sure I wouldn't call it a stub. Needs additional citations. Needs an info box map to illustrate the relative positions of Calais, Dover and the national boundaries. Will be back to do some major hacking on the "Legacy" section. Will split that into a Cultural legacy section and a Political legacy section.

There is only one sentence on the value of Calais to the English over two centuries. Not encyclopedic!

I wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be so much more info on why Calais was important for England and why the French wanted to annex it. Also, on whom backed the French attack finacially - mayhap the hand of Jewry? Lastly, why the local Dutch-speakers were cool with Calais and its English population but not the Romance-speaking French.

Needs a map showing Calais and neigbouring hinterlands as part of England

Folk skipping through this article might think it was the English seiging Calais. Another thing, maybe overset the the article's heading to someting like: 'The French Siege of Calais'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:21B:D600:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74 (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Calais (1346–1347)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 06:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I will review this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

A few minor points:

• suggest using the diacritic for entrepôt and linking

Careless of me. Done.

• Edwards Flemish allies needs an apostrophe

Done.

• drop the comma from "began he disbanded most of his army, to save money" and put one after

I am not convinced by that one, but done anyway.

• who is Duke John? ditto Lancaster, and his presence in the southwest also hasn't been mentioned, a sentence of introduction seems necessary

Well spotted, thank you. (I probably need a break from the Hundred Years' War, I am getting too close.) Both properly, if briefly, introduced.

• "Philip's heir, Duke John" should be unnecessary as he should have been introduced earlier per above

As above.

• "large financial resources to strengthening their naval resources" is a bit repetitive

Good point. Tweaked.

• link Saint-Omer

Done.

• initial capital for "in an attempt"

Done.

• "September. but experienced serious difficulties" should be a comma?

It should.

• File:Belagerung von Calais 1346-1347.JPG needs more information or a better license, currently needs an author and date of death

I'm not sure how I missed this. Swapped it for what I hope is a better licenced image.

• File:Phil6france.jpg likewise

Likewise.

That's all I have. Placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Phew. A lot of sweat expended over the images, but hopefully all of your points now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Post-GA

I recently noticed and fixed the overcapitalized lead "The Siege of Calais..."; note that sources overwhelmingly use "siege of Calais" with lowercase siege. Gog reverted me. This should be fixed, esp. for an FA. Dicklyon (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Gog fixed it back. Dicklyon (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: There was a request to provide an author and date of death for File:Belagerung von Calais 1346-1347.JPG. The only thing that has been provided is the book it was scanned from. Where's the info about the original painting? How do we know that it's actually of the siege of Calais or even that it's "medieval"?

Images of unknown provenance should be avoided in articles overall and should be a no-no in infoboxes. This matters because whatever goes in to the infobox effectively becomes the image of the battle. It's not just a concern for Wikipedia but tends to have huge ripple effects all across the interwebs. Peter ^Isotalo 14:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Lower case "siege" in first line of lead

Gog, on this one I slipped while trying to type edit summary "don't make the lead about the term". On this one of yours, are you now OK going back to lowercase siege? Dicklyon (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC) (Copied from User talk:Gog the Mild.)

Hi Dicklyon, I hope you don't mind me moving this part of the conversation here. Non-trivial changes to FAs ideally have some sort of discussion or explanation on their talk pages. (I'm not sure this is non-trivial, but you just know that someone is going to claim it isn't at some point.)

This is another one where I have many of the high quality sources in paper. And you won't be surprised to hear that there is a broad consensus for "siege". I am shaking my head at how I have managed to not apply the MoS here. Although "the siege of Calais" isn't that common in the text, while "Siege of Calais" is, in titles etc. But still.

So yep, I'm fine with it and will revert my revert.

Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've now queued up about a hundred more FAs with the same case error. I don't think such minor mods need to documented on the talk pages (SMcCandlish had commented on that specifically in the Milhist project discussion, I think). Dicklyon (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not so sure that they are minor and am inclined to err on the cautious side. (From the several recent discussions a number of editors with various opinions don't seem to consider the minor.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yet none have pointed out any errors, have they? If you see any cases where "siege" should be capped, please do let me know. Dicklyon (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Did someone say they didn't think these were "minor"? I don't recall that. I thought they just questioned whether there's consensus for them. Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and finished up fixing over-capitalized "Siege" in FAs, and moved on to GAs, where there are lots more. I never paid any attention to FA and GA status before, but I actually do think now that it's important. In particular, these are where we should be setting the best example of how to adhere to guidelines such as MOS:CAPS. So I'll put more emphasis on such fixes in FAs and GAs in the future. I got a pair of reverts to Siege of Calais to discuss ([1], [2]), but no other reactions, and so far no reason give for it on the user's talk page; I invited him to the larger conversation. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm done withe siege case fixing in GAs now. Let me know if you see any I got wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Chronology of sculpture

The article claims that the sculpture "The Burghers of Calais" was commissioned in 1880 but the specific article about the sculpture, citing the same source, says 1884. Lieven Smits (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Good spot, thank you. I no longer have ready access to that source, but other sources, eg David Wilkins,Art past, art present give 1884 so I can only assume that I committed a bizarre typo. I will change the date to 1884 and re-cite it. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Froissart

This edition of Froissart's chronicles calls into question the historicity of that account, at footnote 2 on the linked page, which in turns quotes another history. Is there historic consensus on that story? This article, while it uses the word "claims", may leave the impression that the story is true. Kablammo (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, I am guessing that "that account" refers to "An account by the contemporary chronicler Froissart claims ..."? If so, consensus doesn't matter: the phraseology is intended to make clear that it was simply an account, not a broadly agreed historical "fact", and the one which which was the basis of the composition. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)