Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Aiguillon/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 via FACBot (talk) 12 February 2019 [1].

Siege of Aiguillon

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A turning point in the Hundred Years' War which has been almost completely ignored by historians. In 1346 Prince John, the French King's son and heir, marched a "huge" army into Gascony, supported by a large siege train, five cutting edge gunpowder cannon and every military officer in the royal court. They besieged Aiguillon, "the key to Gascony". The English commander, the Earl of Lancaster, adroitly avoided battle, harassed the French communications, and repeatedly ran supplies through to the besieged town. After more than five months John abandoned the siege under direct orders from his father, who needed all the troops he could muster to face an unexpected invasion in the north by Edward III. John's army arrived two weeks after the French army of the north had been crushingly defeated at the Battle of Crecy.

This article recently achieved A class status and I am cautiously optimistic that it may be capable of being massaged into featured article quality. @Chetsford, AustralianRupert, CPA-5, and Peacemaker67: Greetings to you all. You were good enough to have a look at and to comment on this article at ACR. It is now up for an FAC and I wondered if I could impose on you to have another look at it. If I can, then many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Chetsford

[edit]

I reviewed this during its A-Class Review and all my possible comments were thoroughly addressed there. I've re-read it and have seen no further changes other than those I would characterize as improvements to an already excellent article. As a result, I don't have much more to add other than to say I believe it meets the FA criteria if — for no other reason — than I'm still delighted, even some weeks later, at having learned what a grand chevauchée is. I strongly support promoting this to Featured status. Chetsford (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chetsford. Thanks for the kind words and for the support. I shall see what further Medieval esoterica I can come up with for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — pass

[edit]

Comments by Buidhe

[edit]
  • The first image breaks across sections, failing MOS:IMAGELOC. I would also suggest reducing the size of the second image, which looks disproportionate.
I get, as you would expect, different results on an iPhone, an android phone, an iPad, my laptop and my PC. Obviously it also varies depending on how I have set the "thumbnail size" in preferences. (I usually use 300px.) Some break the section, some don't. (Obviously reducing the size setting removes the "problem"; while maximising it creates it on all but one platform.)
I can't see a rule about breaking sections in MOS:IMAGELOC. I am quite prepared to believe that I am being an idiot, but could you quote it for me for clarity. Thanks.
Well it doesn't look disproportionate to me (on any of the five platforms). But I would say that wouldn't I - if I had thought it was I would have changed it already. Now shrunk a little - cranked it down to its default setting. How's that? (I agree with you - it does look better at this size.)
  • I would recommend trimming the lede a bit, it seems too long for an article that's only 17k readable prose overall.
Fair point. Edited down a bit, but note Peacemaker's request below for more information in the lead.

buidhe 06:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe. Two points addressed, and one query. And thanks once again for the huge amount of reviewing you get through, I am sure that I am not the only editor who appreciates it.. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

My involvement in the Milhist ACR was only an image review, so I'll take a close look through this here. I have a few comments, but it might take a couple of bites:

  • "confiscated the Gascon holdings" didn't he attempt to do that? Clearly it wasn't successful, so perhaps a better description would be "attempted to confiscate"?
Ha. I am trying to get into a short sentence a situation which engaged the finest legal minds of the time for a generation. And was written in Medieval High French legalese! I am open to suggestions here. I think that the word I really want is 'appropriated' (To take to oneself; to claim or use, especially as by an exclusive right) but it seems a bit opaque to me. What do you think?
what about "sought to appropriate"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: I like that and went to make the change. To discover that it has dropped out after CPA-5's request that I amend that section to be more in line with Battle of Auberoche. It has ended up as "should be taken back into Philip's hands". You may wish to recheck the paragraph. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, Garonne is misspelt as Garrone on second mention.
Fixed.
  • "Duke John werewas never able"
Done.
  • comma after "By August"
Done.
  • link dysentery
Done.
  • in the lead, perhaps mention that Crecy was fought without Duke John's army?
Done.
  • link Duchy of Aquitaine
Done.
  • suggest "up to two thirds of them would bewere tied down in garrisons"
Only if you insist. I would need to change "could field" to 'fielded'; and, to my eye, it would make the sentence a little clumsy.
  • suggest linking Ford (crossing)
Done.
  • link foraging
I would like to, but I can't find an article on Forage (military) or similar.
  • comma after "During 1345"
Done.
  • I'm not sure about the value of the MeasuringWorth conversion. In any case, being French, Euros would be better than pounds.
People seem to have strong(ish) views on this. I tend towards liking it, and it is permitted by the MoS. I disagree. If the article were on Iran, would you want the modern sum in rials. Surely this is the English Wikipedia and we are writing for an English audience? Why should Euros mean anything to them. (Yes, I understand that pounds may be unfamiliar to many English language readers.) Given that pounds existed in 1346 and that there was an exchange rate, pounds seems to be the currency to go with. Plus, so far as I can see, the template only works on currencies which existed on the base date. The source converts to 1346 pounds, but for Euros I would have to hand enter, which means that it would not adjust in future years,
Happy(ish) to be persuaded otherwise.
  • as I've suggested elsewhere, I suggest using one name for Duke John of Normandy, perhaps Duke John would be best, rather than Normandy etc.
I thought that I had done that, but clearly not thoroughly enough. Now consistent.
  • comma after "On 14 August"
Done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "On the 20 August"
done.
  • "Local, Gascon, forces"
Done.
  • 50 miles, wasn't it 60 miles in another relevant article?
It was. That's me dithering over my paraphrasing. Checking the source I am going to go with 50 miles and alter Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346.

That's me done. Nice work so far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67. Thanks for the prompt and insightful review. All of your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

I do have some comments for you, if you don't mind (of course) here they are.

Rephrased in a similar way to Battle of Auberoche.
  • Among their cargos were over 100,000,000 litres of wine. Like in the Battle of Auberoche again. No US quarts?
Done.
  • File:Guyenne_1328-en.svg image should use English-controlled not English controlled.
Done.
  • The main wall, 2,700 feet (820 m) long, was modern but incomplete Why was the main wall incomplete? Did the town hadn't much time to prepare itself for an attack?
Ha! It took years, sometimes decades, to wall a town. And cost immense amounts of money. And, as noted in the "Gascony" section, the English had only captured it the previous winter (December) and the French arrived on 1 April. But this wasn't really the issue - this is OR, but fairly obvious if you study the period - it was that it would have taken 5 or more years to build new, modern town walls from scratch; if they had had the money, which they almost certainly didn't. (There was a war on and their most lucrative trade had to go through the enemy (English)-held port of Bordeaux.)
  • See some typos of the name Garonne.
  • The northern wall of the town was protected by the Lot and the western by the Garrone,
  • The army marched down the valley of the Garrone from Agen
  • Aiguillon commands both the Rivers Garronne and Lot,
Well spotted. Thank you. Fixed.
  • I'm not gonna say the name Quercy is overlinked because there are two Quercys linked in the body itself. The first one in By March they were both in the province of Quercy. in the "Investment" section and the second in the Further Gascon forces raided to the east, deep into Quercy, in the "Aftermath" section. But the second one shouldn't be linked.
You are, of course, quite right. Fixed.

You know the FA article itself says FAs are one of Wikipedia's best articles. This isn't one of the "best articles" of Wikipedia, this is just one of the masterpieces of Wikipedia. Cheers. :) CPA-5 (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Thank you once again for your painstaking scrutiny. And for your generous - over-generous - words. This is the fourth article I have written from scratch and I think that I am starting to get the hang of it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Greetings Gog well you just made some good service here. Only could you remove the During the first half of the 14th century well over 1,000 ships a year departed Gascony for England. sentence's paragraph in the "Gascony" section? Because you just literally have two the same paragraphs. One in the "Gascony" and one in the "Background" itself. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: How very stupid of me. Sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Stafford_1430.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag
I have amended the information in line with the one in Battle of Auberoche, amended the tag, and added a live link.
Oops. Added as in Battle of Auberoche. And in a third, and final, article where I have used this map. There is also a request in with the map department for a version of the larger map with the smaller location map inset.

Hi Nikkimaria and thanks once again. Your two points, I believe, both addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria. If you could spare a couple of minutes to see if I have got these two corrections right I would be extremely grateful. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both look fine, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I've had quite a job to find something to quibble at, and the best I can manage is:

  • Operations
    • "the large French army … was entirely dependent on the rivers for their logistics" – singular switching to plural in mid-sentence
Done. It always amazes me how one can check and recheck an article, and still miss the most elementary issues. Thanks.
    • "significant" – this is the fourth "significant" in the text and the question arises in each case, what did it/they signify? A pity to use a precise word as a mere synonym for important or major.
True. Three of the four cases removed.
    • "fourteenth century" – the MoS (regrettably in my view) would have us write 14th-century, as you have done earlier.
Boo! Done.
  • French withdrawal
    • "5 miles inland" – "five" would be more usual for a number below 10 such as this.
Done.
    • "advisors" – a pity to use the AmE "advisors" rather than the traditional BrE "advisers". (This is a losing battle, but I fight it just the same.)
Done. As I have written before, I read too much American fiction and thus forget the lessons I have been taught.
  • Aftermath
    • "modern historian Jonathan Sumption" – clunky false title, which can be remedied by adding a definite article.
I persist in creating false titles. Please keep correcting me. I hope to get the message eventually.

Nothing of any great moment there. This is a splendid article: a good read, evidently comprehensive, well illustrated and widely referenced. Very happy to support. Tim riley talk 14:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Many thanks for saving my embarrassment over these issues, and for the gentle way in which you correct me. I am trainable. I think. I hope. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query to coordinators

[edit]

Hi Ian Rose and the other coordinators. To my untutored eye it looks as if this FAC may be drawing to a close. If I am mistaken, apologies; as a neophyte at things FAC I am still learning the ropes. However, if it is, could I request permission to nominate my next candidate? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, I agree this looks very "promotable" as things stand, I just prefer to leave all reviews open at least 10-14 days to give busy editors a chance to comment so, to minimise the time you'd have two noms open simultaneously, how about you start the new one on Sunday (assuming of course no major concerns raised with the current one in the meantime). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian Rose and thanks for the response. That is a very good point. I hadn't really thought about how short a time it had been open for. I shall hold off. It is generous of you to say that I can open another on Sunday. Obviously, as you say, I won't if there are further substantive comments on this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]

Excellent work. I can't see anything here that's worth holding up promotion for, but just two very minor quibbles:

  • Throughout the siege small groups of Anglo-Gascons were able to run the blockade with small quantities Maybe try and avoid the repetition of "small"?
Good spot. Reworded.
  • Scholars of chivalry were later to debate what, if any, circumstances honourably justified a retreat from such a situation A few words on their conclusions, even in a footnote, would be nice.
That is about all the source says. Checking the usual suspects I can't find that it was ever resolved. (A similar issue, concerning another French participant was still being debated by scholars in the 19th-century.) I suspect that it became a nationalistic dispute. ereading, it is interesting, IMO, but off topic, so I have taken it out.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, thanks for dropping by. And for the comments. Both very germane, both addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair enough to me. Support, gladly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:31, 8 February 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/Siege_of_Aiguillon/archive1&oldid=883051561"