Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Hastings/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 Ian Rose 10:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Battle of Hastings

[edit]

Battle of Hastings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... it's been through GA, it's had copyedits by two fine copyeditors (John and Eric Corbett), and I've read a large chunk of both older and new sources in the course of getting this (and Norman Conquest of England) up to snuff. It's a good, well sourced introduction to a complex subject. It continues on with the Norman conquest of England topic I've been working on for a while, this article treats the actual decisive battle that assured the Normans control of England. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: generally an easy-to-read account that avoids overdetailing and is especially good in explaining background and context. I have a few quibbles, suggestions and queries, nothing major:

  • The section "Tostig's invasion", is as much about Hadrada's invasion as Tostig's so you may want to vary the heading
  • Section: "Harold's preparations and the English army" - it would make logical sense to reverse the paragraph order in this section
  • "suffered such horrific losses" - moderate "horrific" as contrary to WP:PEACOCK
    • The sources are all pretty secure on this - 24 out of 300 ships works out to only 8% of the ships were needed to take home the survivors. That's not just horrific, it's pretty much obscene. Stamford was a devasting loss for the invaders. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not suggesting that the losses weren't horrifiic, merely that use of such descriptions should be attributed to a source. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rather than fight against the stupid idiocy that is the usual interpretation of WP:PEACOCK, I've changed "horrific" to "great". (You'd be hard pressed to find any historian that comments on the losses at Stamford who doesn't use some sort of word like horrific... but it's not worth the fight.). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • explanation of "hide" required in text; I had to use the link, which was disruptive to my reading
  • "William's preparations and landing": include a year somewhere in the first paragraph of the section, e.g. "In April 1066 Halley's Comet..." etc
  • "After landing, William's forces built a wooden castle at Hastings..." Since Hastings is a good 10 miles east of Pevensey, maybe "after landing" is an oversimplification. Presumably he established and extended his beachhead.
    • But we don't know that for sure. I'm not sure that I see that there is a big problem here - he built the castle soon after landing (it was built before the battle) ... so it was soon after landing. Suggestions are welcome to help refine this .. but most of the sources I've used go direct from landing to castle building. (It was a wooden motte-and-bailey castle, not a big stone keep, if that helps. It was thrown up in a few days.) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • We know he landed at Pevensey, and then built a castle 10 miles to the east at Hastings. Do no sources explain why he shifted his base to Hastings, rather than use the existing stronghold at Pevensey where, according to your image caption, he built a fort after the battle? it just seems a slight hole in the story – but unless the sources provide explanations, there's little we can do. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope, we really don't know - the original sources don't state why, and I haven't seen any speculation of why either. Having travelled over that countryside, my guess is that Hastings is on higher, drier ground and it was a good spot to build a castle and control the countryside, likely the first good spot he came to. Perhaps one of the men in his army had previously served in England (there were Normans who served as soldiers in England during the 1050s) and knew the area. We just don't know. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only about 35 individuals can be reliably claimed to have been with William at Hastings." Needs revising to avoid the impression that William only had 35 in his army. E.g. "only about 35 names can be reliably identified as having been with William at Hastings."
  • "William's scouts reported the English arrival to the duke." Clarify where the English were encamped before the battle
  • English forces at Hastings: the figures suggested from Norman sources (400,000 to 1,200,000) are not just unreliable (total Eng. population at the time was around 3 million), they are absurd - I would emphasise this
    • I can't really do much more without going into OR territory. As a general rule, figures of any army before the modern era are unreliable - it's merely a question of how unreliable. Historians just don't feel the need to ridicule them that much.. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Few individual Englishmen are known to have been at Hastings, with the most important being Harold's brothers Gyrth and Leofwine.[25] About 20 named individuals can reasonably be assumed to have fought with Harold at Hastings, including Harold's two brothers and two other relatives." These two sentences should be merged, since they are essntially saying the same thing.
  • "The battle occurred on Saturday 14 October 1066". I'd absorb this information into the second substantive sentence of the paragraph: "The only facts that are undisputed are that the fighting began at 9 am on Saturday 14 October 1066 and that the battle lasted until dusk".
  • I'd also try to avoid the repetition: "...the battle.[69] The battle..."
  • You say the battle took place between two hills - "Caldbec Hill to the north and Telham Hill to the south". The lead and infobox say it took place at Senlac Hill; in the text, "Senlac" is given as an alternative name for the battle, with no mention of a hill.
  • The information about the London-Lewes road and the hike over local tracks probably belongs earlier in the narrative: Lewes is at least 20 miles (a day's march?) from the battle site. As I mention earlier, it would be useful to know where the English were encamped the night before the battle.
  • "with some of them rallying on a hillock before dying". Does "them" refer to the Norman counter-attackers or the English pursuers?
  • (I love the idea of the battle having a meal break. Just like cricket)
  • "the English pursuit and subsequent rout". It needs to be clearer who was routed.
  • "What exactly happened" → "Exactly what happened"?
  • "Harold had to dismiss his forces in southern England on 8 September..." → "Harold had dismissed [or 'demobilized'?] his forces in southern England on 8 September..."
  • "Sent to the papacy"? to the pope, surely?

Good stuff. For old time's sake I will do a sources review. Brianboulton (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • I think the footnotes and the citations look neater in 4-col format (I've tried it).
    • I have them set to be a certain width instead of a certain number of columns. It appears as 4 columns for my screen... I prefer a bit more white space and less bunching of each citation. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise all sources look of appropriate quality. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All issues resolved Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Parutakupiu

[edit]

— Parutakupiu (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Like any supposedly educated Englishman I vaguely knew the gist of this article, but to have the facts set out clearly, as here, in well-proportioned, detailed and pleasing prose, is both instructive and enjoyable. I don't see how this could be improved on, and in my view it meets all the FA criteria. Two small comments, which ignore if you wish: "35 named individuals can be reliably claimed to have been with William" is not the most streamlined prose, and "the beaten foe" seems a touch quaint. Mere suggestions. Otherwise cordial applause. – Tim riley (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the praise, and the support. I'm open to suggestions on how to better word the first, but I honestly can't think of one right this moment. I kinda like "the beaten foe", myself, I'm not always opposed to using quaint when it helps vary the wording choices. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could substitute "fleeing defenders" instead of "beaten foe". Eric Corbett 18:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went with "fleeing soldiers"... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (CC own work, Geograph, PD-art|PD-old-100). Sources and authors provided.

Support Comments: Returning from an involuntary break, so mostly looking at reference formatting rather than content until I re-acclimate:

  • When multiple citations support the same text, convention is for them to appear in numerical order. For example, at the end of "Background and location", you have a statement cited to [67][86][83][87], but those references should be reordered to read [67][83][86][87]. Note g has the same issue.
  • I believe that the little horizontal line in the Bennett et al. title should be an en-dash.
  • The Douglas reference lacks an ISBN number (978-0520003484).
  • In the Nicolle Medieval Warfare reference, I believe the "In" should be lowercase.

I had to pick nits pretty minutely here; this looks like excellent work. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all but the Douglas - it predates ISBNs, so the edition I'm using doesn't have one. That isbn you give is for the 1999 Yale University Press edition - I'm using the original first edition first printing of the University of California Press. (they don't differ in content but do in printing, possibly in pagination). Douglas died in 1982, so he never revised that work. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Some books, especially ones that got a lot of use, have had ISBNs retroactively assigned. There does seem to be some confusion in the databases regarding some printings, however. I show 978-0520003484 for the June 1964 "1st Folio" University of California Press edition, 978-0413243201 for the Methuen Publishing hardcover later in 1964, and 978-0520003507 for the 1967 University of California paperback reprint. Different formats of the 1999 Yale reprint appear to have been assigned 978-0300185545 and 978-0300185546. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't matter though ... as ISBNs are not required, especially when it's a matter of a book originally published before them. It has an OCLC which allows someone to look up the edition, thus it's consistent with the other references. (For that matter, references are not required to be in numerical order at FAC - plenty of FACs I've shepherded don't have them set up that way) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked back over this, and I'm happy to support this article. I might consider rewording the first sentence of "Reasons for the outcome"; "probably" feels awkward there to me, and is repeated at the start of the next paragraph. I don't have the sources on hand, so I'm not sure how much equivocation they give over the causes. Can we say something like "Several circumstances contributed to Harold's defeat."? Perhaps with "may have", if needed, just to avoid the qualifier duplication? Regardless, I don't consider this an actionable objection (nor is the issue with the Douglas book's identifier, on which we may agree to disagree). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very engaging read, I can't fault it. I made a few small tweaks. J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By no means a vote against, but I think that the description of the composition of the forces could focus more on the military traditions of the two armies. The respective compositions follow naturally from the Germanic-Scandinavian infantry traditions of the Anglo-Saxons and the modification of that same tradition by exposure of the Normans to the French and the presence of native French forces in William's army. Doug (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I follow the sources - they don't discuss that as an aspect of Hastings. It'd be a better fit at an article on Anglo-Saxon military or Norman military forces. (I have no idea if we have such an article or not.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see we do. Anglo-Saxon military organization. I've linked that article. We seem to be lacking a similar one for Normans - probably something to suggest at MilHist. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - reflects the specialist literature well. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few comments:

  • The narrative is a bit confusing when it goes from mentioning "Godwin, Earl of Wessex", and then "Earl of Wessex, Harold Godwinson" Was the title passed between those two somewhere in there?
  • "William and Harald immediately set about assembling troops and ships for an invasion." Were they doing this in concert, or were they each planning their own invasions? It becomes clear later, but could use some clarification here.
  • "The fyrd and the housecarls both fought on foot, mainly distinguished by the housecarl's superior armour." I don't understand what the modifying phrase "mainly distinguished by the housecarl's superior armour" is modifying. What was distinguished?
  • "Learning of the Norwegian invasion he rushed north" How did he learn of it?

Interesting read! --Laser brain (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (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_Hastings/archive1&oldid=1089817821"