Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 April 2019 [1].

Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The latest in my series of articles attempting to improve coverage of the Hundred Years' War. The war in Gascony was crucial to the events of the war in 1346, but was overshadowed by the English victory at Crécy in August. The Earl of Lancaster had successfully kept the cream of the French army away from Crecy by holding out at the Siege of Aiguillon before south west France was stripped of troops to face Edward III in north east France. Lancaster then took 2,000 men and cut a swathe through French territory on a mounted raid lasting seven weeks, covering 350 miles, capturing numerous French towns and castles, and sacking the provincial capital, Poitiers. After a recent A class review I am hopeful that it approaches FA standard, but no doubt it contains flaws and lacunae and all suggestions for improvement are welcome. Pinging the contributors to the ACR, who may be interested in re-commenting for FAC @Buidhe, Peacemaker67, CPA-5, AustralianRupert, and P. S. Burton: So lay on, and be damned he who first cries "Hold, enough". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • Lacey: Robert Lacey wrote a series of books under the umbrella title of Great Tales from English History. You need to specify which particular volume this source refers to, and also to provide an ISBN.
  • In general, the sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability. There are no formatting issues.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brianboulton, thank you for looking at the sources. Lacey: he did indeed. However, the 2008 the Folio Society edition consists of a selection from the three previous volumes, and so is not part of the series. It has no fuller nor more complete title, nor volume number. Nor does it have an ISBN; strange, but true. In support I offer the WorldCat entry with the note at the bottom "Selections from the work of the same title originally published in three volumes: London: Little, Brown, 2003-2006", and offering an OCLC, but no ISBN. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Brianboulton (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM

[edit]

I went through this article in detail at Milhist ACR, and I consider it meets all the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

Adding as I go... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • both weak and disorganised.— Do you need "both"?
IMO yes. It adds a little emphasis to just how weak and disorganised the defences were, while deleting "both" makes it seem that one of the words is redundant. I will remove it if you prefer.
As long as you've thought about it, I'm fine with whatever you decide Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 160 miles (260 kilometres)... Among their cargos were over 100,000,000 litres (110,000,000 US quarts) So much wrong here. The first conversion is Imperial to metric, second is metric to US. Also, I'd query why US quart is more relevant to this article than the English quart? Also, what's wrong with using "millions" in your conversions instead of strings of zeroes?. Finally, unless the US spelling is different, it should be "cargoes". Incidentally, Battle of Bergerac has the same problems in an identical sentence.
As do three other FAs. I think that this sentence has been picked up in every ACR and FAC, or maybe it just feels like it. I have tended to go with the latest suggestion each time, and there is a TPW who keeps them consistent and/or how they prefer them.
I am honestly not that bothered. I do wish that the various reviewers were consistent, but I realise that this is Wikipedia. I count my blessings that I only get one opinion per review. I have a preference for all the zeros, as a way of preventing, possibly, a reader from glossing over how humongous a figure this was for the time. I think that I started with gallons, or maybe pints, converted to litres. What would you think of a three way conversion? (PS Three of my five paper dictionaries accept "cargos" as a British English plaural; I can't find an on line one that doesn't. That said, I am happy to go with 'cargoes' and will amend the other FAs accordingly.)
If you prefer the zeroes, that's fine with me, it's just a personal style preference, not a "must do". For the wine, the key thing is that the order must be imperial->metric, to be consistent with the other conversions. I suppose you could have a three-way conversion, although I wouldn't bother, myself. Chambers has "cargoes", but if you can justify the alternative spelling, obviously you can use it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It had sailed but never landed, after the fleet was scattered in a storm.— perhaps better as The fleet had sailed, but was scattered in a storm and never reached its destination
Hmm. Yes, It doesn't work how it is. How about "It embarked on the English fleet, but the ships were scattered in a storm." (The never landed, never arrived bits are probably redundant.)
Fine with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimfbleak, thanks for looking at this. Resonses to your comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really see any issues in the rest of the text, so I'll change to support above, on the assumption that the conversion order will be fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jim, thanks for the flexibility. I have gone with pints to litres, numerals, and cargoes. I will standardise thia across the other FAs. CPA-5, your input would be valued here. Note Jim's comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm oh hello Gog, sure, why not. Personally I disagree about the imperial pints thing. First yes Britons may uses imperial pints instead of litres but that doesn't mean that the American pints should be ignored. The American pints are in general smaller than the British pints, so. Why shouldn't it be in the article if we change U.S. quarts to imperial pints? CPA-5 (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, good to see you back in action. How would you feel about:

Among their cargoes were over 200,000,000 imperial pints (110,000,000 litres; 120,000,000 US quarts) of wine.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Gog Hmm the word cargoes looks a little odd to me especially because it is tottaly the same in American English and British English it is even seen as an alternative. But if you really wanna change cargos into cargoes then it's fine IMO. Second I'll give Jim a point that an imperial unit should be first, because it'd be a little bit odd to see a metric unit before an imperial one but in the rest of the lead it is first the imperial unit instead of the metric one. Third IMO, it is weird to see two different non-metric units (imperial pints and U.S. quarts). I mean IMO if we have to go with quarts then I'd say: "Among their cargoes were over 100,000,000 imperial quarts (110,000,000 litres; 120,000,000 US quarts) of wine." if we have to go with pints then it should be: "Among their cargoes were over 200,000,000 imperial pints (110,000,000 litres; 240,000,000 US pints) of wine.". Both are correct but IMO both shouldn't be mixed because it can confuse the readers. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Cargoes is the standard British English spelling. Cargos is US English. Some more modern dictionaries say that cargos is acceptable for British English, but the consensus is for cargoes.
What I was trying to do was go with the most appropriate and common unit for each reader. So imperial quarts are out; few British English readers will even have heard of them. (It would be worse than using decilitres rather than litres.) So my preference, and something Jim would be ok with, would be to just use pints and litres, as currently in the article. Or we could use the common units for each reader: pints, litres, US quarts - as above. Or we could go with:
Among their cargoes were over 200,000,000 imperial pints (110,000,000 litres; 240,000,000 US pints) of wine.
What would your preference be?
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So amended. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

[edit]

A great read, and not a single nitpick. However, I'm wondering if you have a general idea how to organize the content of the Hundred years war into articles? This article is very specialized. Much of it is context and aftermath, and only three paragraphs are on the Chevauchée itself. So I wonder why a separate article is needed here after all? What is the advantage compared with an article with a slightly larger scope? For an article as specialized as this, I would also expect to have more detail on the topic of the article, the Chevauchée, itself. Also, I would expect something about the historic sources. How much do we know, and from which sources? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jens, thanks for the feedback. This article is one of a series of five on the Hundred Years' War in Gascony 1345-46. The other four have passed FAC during the past two months. The question of the name came up at ACR, in the context of the article "taking too long to get to the point". I responded "I am happy to rename the article if you think that is called for. Several RSs refer to the whole post Siege of Aiguillon period under the catch all title of Lancaster's chevauchee, but if that misleads a reader then it can be changed." The reviewer didn't come back on this point, so nothing was changed.
The sources are more or less evenly split, and are not always internally consistent, as to whether the whole period, August-December, in Gascony should be referred to as Lancaster's chevauchee. Taking this wider definition, the article has eight paragraphs directly relating to it. I prefer the existing title, but as above "if that misleads a reader then it can be changed".
The question of the sources has also come up in an earlier FAC of a Gascon front article - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Auberoche/archive1#Comments by Constantine for the discussion and conclusion. (I am not against discussion of sources when it is really necessary for a reader, eg see the first section of Battle of Cape Ecnomus, currently in ACR, or the second paragraph of Battle of Bergerac#Battle, FACed a week ago, but it is rarely considered necessary for military history articles.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I actually didn't get that, I assumed that the "French offensive" and "Anglo-Gascon offensive" sections are part the background and context, as they are excluded by the article's title and the definition given in the first sentence. I see the problem that the scope of the article does not become clear. And yes, I would think of a title that actually reflects the full content of the article. If such a title could be found that would be ideal, although I understand that the current title may sound much better. Alternatively, it might already get a bit clearer if you would rename the section "Gascony" in something containing the words "Background" or "Context", to be clear where the background stops and the actual article content starts? Also, the first sentence should imho make clear what the scope of the article is. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jens I have renamed and re-levelled some sections; what do you think? And how does the following sound as a lead?


Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 is the name given to a series of offensives directed by Henry, Earl of Lancaster, in south western France during autumn 1346, as a part of the Hundred Years' War.

The year had started with a "huge" French army under John, Duke of Normandy, the French king's son and heir, besieging the strategically important town of Aiguillon in Gascony. Lancaster refused battle and harassed the French supply lines while preventing Aiguillon from being blockaded. After a five-month siege the French were ordered north to confront the main English army, which on 12 July had landed in Normandy under Edward III of England and commenced the Crécy campaign.

This left the French defences in the south west both weak and disorganised. Lancaster took advantage by launching offensives into Quercy and the Bazadais and himself leading a third force on a large-scale mounted raid (a chevauchée) between 12 September and 31 October 1346. All three offensives were successful, with Lancaster's chevauchée, of approximately 2,000 English and Gascon soldiers, meeting no effective resistance from the French, penetrating 160 miles (260 kilometres) north and storming the rich city of Poitiers. His force then burnt and looted large areas of Saintonge, Aunis and Poitou, capturing numerous towns, castles and smaller fortified places as they went. The offensives completely disrupted the French defences and shifted the focus of the fighting from the heart of Gascony to 50 miles (80 kilometres) or more beyond its borders.

Jens Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the sections are much clearer now. The lead you proposed reads very good, and assuming that the term "Lancaster's chevauchée" has been used somewhere to refer to the whole series of initiatives (as the article does), it should be totally fine. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens. No, no; thank you. A reviewer prepared to step back and look at the big picture is most welcome. You have caused me to improve the article in ways which I would never have thought of alone.
You could open a move/rename discussion if you wish. But n source I have come across - and there are not many - uses a consistent name for this period in this theatre. The only name which any ever use is the one given to the article. (Not by me, BTW.) One could argue, quite reasonably IMO, that that is an error by the RS and that it should, strictly, only be applied to Lancaster's trip north. In which case we would have to invent our own name (such as "Anglo-Gascon offensives, autumn 1346). But without any support from RSs I uspect that we would get one opinion per participant, and I would prefer not to go there. But you would be entirely within your rights, and I would not take umbrage, so go for it if you wish. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, again, for the improvement of the lead; this was all, and more, I had asked for. Hoping to see further pieces of your series. Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley

[edit]

Another excellent article in the continuing series. I shall certainly be supporting, but first I offer a few very minor suggestions about the prose:

  • "commenced the Crécy campaign" – merely a stylistic point: Fowler writes that "commence" is a word used by the sort of writers who prefer "ere" and "save" to "before" and "except" (and I never see the verb without thinking of a Noël Coward line: "I just can't abide the word 'testicles'. It's smug and refined like 'commence' and 'serviette' and 'haemorrhoids'. When in doubt always turn to the good old Anglo-Saxon words".)
Apart from "ere" I am guilty of all of those. With deliberate aforethought. If you think that "commence" is wrong or infelicitous, feel free to change it with my blessing, but I prefer it.
Of course stick with your preferred wording. My comments are merely suggestions. Tim riley talk 12:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The duty levied by the Crown" – this will probably be correctly read by all readers, but just to be on the safe side I think I'd add "English" before "Crown".
Done.
  • "Bordeaux … had a population … and Bordeaux was possibly richer" – I don't think you need the second "Bordeaux".
I always need a second Bordeaux, but in this case will forego it.
Very good point indeed. I don't mind if I do. Tim riley talk 12:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most significant landholders" – what did they signify? A pity to use a word with a precise meaning as a mere synonym of "important".
Exactly the same error as I made in Gascon campaign of 1345, and pointed out by you in just the same way. Corrected.
  • "Fortifications were also constructed at transport choke points, to collect tolls and to restrict military passage, and fortified towns grew up alongside all bridges and most fords over the many rivers in the region." – 34 words in this sentence, including three conjunctions. I think it would flow more smoothly if you made the second "and" a semicolon.
Fair point. Done. And on several other FAs.
  • "relatively frequent intervals" – relative to what?
Umm. Yes. Corrected.
  • "enormously superior" and "achieved complete strategic surprise" – having these phrases in quotation marks without saying in the text whom you are quoting seems odd to me. If you are using the punctuation to avoid the charge of plagiarism I don't think you need worry for such short phrases, and if you want to make the point that they are the ipsissima verba of some great authority it would be a kindness to say who that great authority is, as you do for the quote in the penultimate para of the Anglo-Gascon offensive section.
They are indeed the words of great authorities. I am now torn between blighting the flow of my prose by inserting their names, or removing the quotation marks and looking as if I haven't read MOS:WTW. I shall go for the second option.
  • "resistance due to lack of troops" – you are trying to say that the struggle, not the resistance, was due to lack of troops etc, but this doesn't say that, even if you think (wrongly in my view) that "due to" is a compound pronoun. "Because of" is wanted here, I should say.
I am; it isn't; it is.
  • "Lancaster personally led 1,000 men" – could he have led them impersonally?
One to leave for the philosophers I think. Changed.

Nothing of any great importance there, but I hope these few suggestions are of use. I'll look in again shortly. – Tim riley talk 09:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Tim. I cannot express my appreciation for your efforts to keep what I shall very loosely term my use of English within bounds. All of your points above have been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support promotion to FA. Very readable, all information duly cited from a range of sources, splendidly illustrated, and evidently comprehensive. As enjoyable to review as its predecessors in the series. I look forward to further instalments. Tim riley talk 12:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Just found something.

@CPA-5: Gah! Apologies. Removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There was a subsequent edit clash, but I have fixed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Ehm, I think there is a little misunderstanding here. You re-added the "80 kilometres" in the heart of Gascony to 50 miles (80 kilometres) or more beyond its borders. which I just removed and should been removed. Because the second "80 kilometres" (which I just removed) isn't necessary. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments

[edit]

@Gog the Mild: Was there an image review I'm not seeing? --Laser brain (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: If I say "yes" will you pass it? ;-) Sadly it is still awaiting one. Which is a little strange as I would have hoped that it would be fairly straight forward. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the editor who did the image review at ACR has been MIA since February. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Fyi, the account last edited five days ago. ——SerialNumber54129 20:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Thanks for that. Good news. I would shout "hurrah", but a single edit six days ago isn't wildly encouraging. Half a hurrah for knowing that whatever is slowing the editing at least it isn't anything terminal. I was going on a conversation a week ago - User talk:Turismond#Help needed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; it's more, so far, raising one arm at muster at Sandwich than the charge at Poitiers. Still, the latter could only come from the former, so there's hope. ——SerialNumber54129 21:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Seems like every image has good ALT text and is properly licensed, but I am not so sure why the Grosmont image is in that section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, many thanks for this review. The article was resectioned as pert of the FAC and I missed that the image of Grosmont/Lancaster was now in a section which barely mentions him. Moved to a more relevant section. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another?

[edit]

Hi User:Laser_brain. Many thanks for rounding up an image reviewer. Appreciated. Given that their only request was for an image to be repositioned, which it has been, could I have permission to nominate my next FAC? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Sure thing! --Laser brain (talk) 12:14, 12 April 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/Lancaster%27s_chevauchée_of_1346/archive1&oldid=1138465553"