Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 19 August 2019 [1].

Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355 edit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The heir to the English throne leads his first independent command 600 miles through enemy territory; aforesaid enemy's stronger force cowers in its fortresses; leaving a trail of fire and pillage the English swagger back to base, allegedly so laden with loot that silver is discarded in favour of gold. Clearly a made-for-the-chronicles script. Strangely this episode has not previously had a Wikipedia article; it has now and I would be grateful for any thoughts regarding its quality, structure, level of detail and state of MoS compliance. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley edit

Another absorbing read in this splendid series. A few minor drafting points:

  • Lead
  • Although we usually avoid citations in the lead if the same material is cited in the main text, an exception is made for direct quotations, which are supposed to be cited at both appearances. You could either add a duplicate citation in the lead or paraphrase the words into oratio obliqua.
Citation added.
  • Background
  • "well over 1,000 ships … over 200,000,000 imperial pints" – perhaps "more than 200,000,000" rather than the repeated "over"?
I specifically looked at this before nominating - I know that I overuse "over". I have no idea why I didn't change it then. Done.
  • "approximately 45%" – the MoS points us towards writing "per cent" rather than "%" in prose (though not tables etc) but does not insist on it. I just mention it.
I tried "per cent" and it looked ugly, so I went with "prose is engaging" rather than the non-binding MoS guidance.
  • Prelude
  • "reinforced his force" – rather a jingle. Perhaps something like "augmented his force"?
It does, doesn't it; not to be anti-jingoist. Issue evaded.
  • Heading east
  • "There new knights were dubbed" – not quite clear where "There" is.
That's me introducing the prior sentence and not proof reading adequately. Sorted.
  • "the army started devastating the countryside; it was divided…" – the army, not the countryside, was divided, but that isn't what this says.
est omnis divisa in partes tres. Reworded.
  • "As before they stormed" – perhaps a comma after "before" would help the eye along the line.
This style of putting a comma after initial time periods usually breaks up the flow of a sentence to me. It is not something I have much encountered outside Wikipedia, but as it seems common within these hallowed halls I shall alter things to suit your preference.
It isn't usually wanted (American schoolmasters and -mistresses have a lot to answer for) but sometimes, as here, it helps the eye along. I often give as an instance "After reading Joyce Beckett was inspired..." where without a comma people might wonder who Joyce Beckett was. Tim riley talk 18:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Returning west
  • "…moved out from Narbonne, with their rearguard and stragglers being harassed …" – This might flow better without the "with" – the absolute construction has the benefit of concision.
Well spotted. Done.
  • Each of the three paras of this section has a clutch of three citations at the end and none within. That means – or should mean – that everything in the paragraph is found in all three sources. If so, that's fine.
If one gets very picky with one's sentence structure, no. But when I went past 30 cites for a paragraoph and seven for a sentence - all the same three citations - I decided that things were getting silly and changed style. (It got much worse than the second paragraph of "Effect".) All three are giving detailed accounts of the same events and drawing on the same contemporary sources, although they stress different aspects. The alternative may stick to the letter of the law, but both makes the article look a mess and, IMO, makes it more difficult for a reader to check attribution. If you don't like this - which would be a perfectly reasonable view - perhaps I could send you a copy of the three cited works for one of the paragraphs and you could form your own view?
As long as anyone can verify your statements from the cited sources I'm happy with the method of citation you espouse. I'm happy to do a source review if no better volunteer comes forward. Ping me if wanted. Tim riley talk 18:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is extremely generous of you. No doubt being plunged into some of the more obscure aspects of mid-14th century warfare will be character forming. As this article is back in the south west the number of substantive sources is limited. I shall ping you if needed.
  • Effect
  • "in order to be able to all the gold" – a word missing between "to" and "all" (and there are those – not me particularly – who hate "in order to" and insist on just "to")
Oh dear. Thank you.
And I am so proud that I didn't mention Rees-Mogg at this point. Oops ...
  • "an additional 100,000 écu in tax each year" – I realise that giving modern equivalents is difficult, but we need some indication of how big a sum this was, either in terms of euros or other modern currency, or percentage of state income, or other measure.
I prefer to do that, but get grief when I do. I have converted into the total weight of 100,000 écu in its base metal and given a very rough - French record keeping was crap - idea of what it meant to the treasury.
That seems to me ideal. (Though we now have "per cent" here and "%" earlier on.) Tim riley talk 18:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The numeral spelt out, likewise "per cent"; not, not. :-)
  • "Contemporaries, including the Black Prince considered" – I think you want two commas or none here.
Indeed.
  • "to have been as success in non-financial terms as in financial" – "successful"?
Sloppy, sloppy.
  • Aftermath
  • "went over to the English, the Black Prince received homage" – stronger stop than a comma needed.
A semi colon? If so, done.

Nothing to frighten the horses there. I'll look in again with a view to adding my support once you've have a chance to consider these few quibbles. – Tim riley talk 09:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Ms Dolittle. Sound points, as usual. Given that I wrote this in less than a week only a month ago and didn't put it through ACR I am tolerably pleased that there wasn't more for you to find fault with. While being frustrated at some of the sloppiness which I did let through. How is it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to add my support now. I am rather sorry to know this series is nearing completion. I have enjoyed each component article as it has come along. Wikipedia can be proud of this coverage. Tim riley talk 18:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: Thank you for the above and for your support through my personal exploration of the Hundred Years' War 1345–1347. If you glance at my target topics, you will see that while, barring an overarching title article, Hundred Years' War 1345–1347 is complete, there are others which I could move onto. Indeed, this article, from 1355, could be the start of the Hundred Years' War, 1355–1356 topic; I am tempted to expand Burnt Candlemas if only because of the name. However, I have been doing work on some aspects of the Seven Years' War - a much shorter conflict - that I would like to work up to FA; including what I consider the most decisive battle fought by an English or British fleet prior to the 20th century. Possibly you will enjoy that too. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

  • resources and had been hard pressed by the French Hard pressed needs a hyphen.
  • Lexico does uses it so I think it is allowed to use it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may, or may not, be "allowed", but as Mr riley points out, so is the construction in the article, per the OED, so there is no need for it to be changed.
  • Yes Gog, but Lexico is made by Oxord so isn't it part of the OED? Also there are two kind of "large-scales" one hyphenate and other one as two words.
@CPA-5: I am not a fan of relying on any single dictionary, and the Qxford series is not my favourite. That said, on investigation there seems to be a noted lack of any support for "hard pressed", so you are correct: hard-pressed it is. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the French King's personal representative It sounds a little bit odd to men especially the "personal" part.
It is a normal usage. (Putting "personal representative of the king" into Google gives 85,000 results, the first from 2010.)
  • with the peace talks having failed Replace "having" with "have".
As Tim says, this would cause the sentence to no longer make sense. It is fine as it is. (Try Googling "having failed".)
  • Instead a chevauchée, a large scale mounted First add an "of" after "instead", second American large scale.
  • Adding an "of" would incorrectly change the meaning. Tim riley talk 13:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judge my brain not me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per Tim re "of". Checking six dictionaries - two off-line, four on - I can find no evidence that either "large scale" or large-scale are preferred (or prohibited) in either usage.
  • @Gog the Mild: just found out there are two kind of "large-scales" here. large-scale v. large scale.
  • There new knights were dubbed, as You mean their?
No, but I have changed it anyway. You may wish to check the new version.
  • parallel to each other, so as to maximise --> "parallel to each other, to maximise".
Done.
  • A colourful fourteenth century depiction of a town being sacked in the File:Sack of the town.jpg the "fourteenth century needs a hyphen".
Oops. Done.
  • The whole of southern France was in uproar Add an "an" before "uproar".
"in uproar" is a perfectly normal usage. See the second example from the Cambridge dictionary, here.
  • to have been as success in non-financial You mean successful?
I do. Done.
  • and attempted no counter measures merge counter measures here.
  • No such word as "countermeasures" in the OED. You could legitimately hyphenate it. Tim riley talk 13:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Link Gascony.
I keep doing that. Done.
  • [Gascon lords] were much comforted,"[33][34][35][36] Try to avoid using more than three citations in one sentence or at the end of a paragraph.
  • Is this specified in the MoS? Useful to have a reference, if so. Tim riley talk 13:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do, but in this case I feel that it is necessary. See discussion above with Tim for my reasons.
  • surprise that they had not even guarded the fords.[28][37][38][39][40] Same as above.
Likewise.
  • bombarding the English with artillery.[28] [37][38][41] Same as above and remove the space in the first citation.
And again. Space removed.
  • a total of 120,000 imperial gallons (550,000 l) No American gallons?
Added.
  • from them on 24 April 1356.[52][60][61][62] Same as above.
And the same response.
  • I see some seasons here. Is it posible to use months instead of seasons?
Given that the seasons are vital to understanding the tempos of the military operations, no. I understand why the use of seasons is normally discouraged, but it doesn't work in this context.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some comments on some of the above points, for clarification. Tim riley talk 13:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you CPA-5 for your usual thorough analysis. All of your points addressed above. And thank you Tim, for your learned interjections. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • Verification:
  • The system used in most of the article, of placing strings of citations at paragraph ends rather than relating individual ones to the statements they support, makes verification difficult – nigh impossible, I'd say. I strongly recommend that you revise this method in favour of individual citations.
I had hoped that the end of paragraph approach would make verification easier, but as neither you nor Tim riley or CPA-5 who have commented above feel that this is the case I have amended it as you suggest. Hopefully you will find it more satisfactory.
  • Ref 18 supports the statement: "...resulting in the death of approximately 45% of the population". The page range in the citation is 77–97; surely a simple statement like this can be cited to a single page, rather than 20?
A complete Horlicks by me - apologies. Sorted.
  • Ref 36, too, is problematic – cited to 7 widely dispersed pages with no clue as to what information in this paragraph these pages refer to (there are others similar, e.g. 30, 40, 41, 46)
I have slimmed down as much as I feel that I can; addressing your first point above helped in this respect. The nature of Madden and Sumption make it difficult. See what you think.
Well, the ref numbers have changed, so it's difficult for me to follow up, but you appear to have done what was asked, and I'm happy to accept things as they stand. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links to sources all working
  • Formats: no issues
  • Quality/reliability: sources appear to be comprehnsive and scholarly, and to meet the required FA criteria

Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian and thanks for wading into this one. Your points above addressed and hopefully you will be happier with it now. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dank edit

SC edit

Dropping a marker to pick up on this shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Now I'm for it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "fell to the English on 3 August 1347, after an eleven-month siege": comma really needed there?
No. (And I can only hope that it wasn't me who put it there.) Now expurgated.
Aftermath / Lead
  • The short lead finishes at the end of the Effect section, and nothing about the Aftermath is mentioned. I was a bit surprised when I read of the four months of fighting in 1356 when the lead wraps everything up in 1855. Just a line or so to say there was more fighting and then the approximate date they returned to England would suffice.
I get, reasonably, accused of over-long leads, so I probably over compensate. See what you think now.

That's it from me. One piffling point, one that should be looked a nit more closely. Aside from that, I'm happy to Support that this meets the FA criteria. – SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Thanks for going through this one. Two good points, both addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That lead looks much better now, thanks. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • A question about the flagicons: Did soldiers back then use these symbols?
They did. See the contemporary image in the infobox of Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 - note the use of the English and French standards. Or ditto for Battle of Calais where the standards of Geoffroi de Charny and Sir Walter Manny are displayed.
OK. The reason I asked is because I recall that sometimes such flagicons are used for battles where no flags were used, so I want to make sure their use here was appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in - that isn't exactly a contemporary image - like most attractive 100YW images it is late 15th century - in fact from the Froissart of Louis of Gruuthuse (BnF Fr 2643-6) of the 1470s - I hope that gets a link sometimes! I'd also be a tad cautious in taking such luxury miniatures as showing how things appeared in reality - their emphasis is more on what things ought to have looked like. Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All images look appropriately licensed to me and the use seems appropriate as well.
  • Not an image question, but what is a chevauchée? The term is used without any explanation.
Ah! Got me. It is "a large-scale mounted raid", as explained on the first line of the lead and again at the second mention in the main article, in the context of the abortive chevauchée from Calais. But, I have got so close that I forgot to link its first non-emboldened use. Now linked for both the lead and the main article.
If my understanding is correct, the ALT text should not simply describe the image but replicate the role it plays in the article structure.
Hmm. MOS:ALT says "Alternative text is text associated with an image that serves the same purpose and conveys the same essential information as the image. ... On Wikipedia, alternative text is typically supplied through a combination of the image caption and the text supplied for the image alt parameter in the MediaWiki markup." So far as I can see I have met these criteria. That said, I frequently don't see as far as I should, and further am clearly having a slow day as I can't work out what "the role it plays in the article structure" means. Any chance of a one-syllable explanation for the slow one at the back of the class?
"the role it plays in the article structure" means "what information would the article lack if the image was removed". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you. Relatively obvious now you have spelt it out. I can't find this in policy or guidelines; could you point it out for me?
I am assuming that you think that the combination of caption and alt text does not adequately "replicate the role [the image] plays in the article structure" in one or more of the four images? All? Or just some? If the latter, which? I ask as I am struggling to see that it doesn't and, leaving aside whether it is required by policy, it would help me if the issue could be narrowed down. I believe that I mentioned that I am not the fleetest of thought. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking the first and third ALT text. I think that it should simply say the name of the person, since AFAIK the image is there only to show the person. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Surely that just redundantly repeats the same information? A sight-impaired reader will then hear the same information twice. However, notwithstanding, done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Many thanks for picking this up, appreciated. Your points above addressed, although in one case partially with a query. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Hi, does this address your concerns, or am I still struggling to understand? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like most is resolved, although you may want to move the chevauchée link up to the first mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: One is not supposed to Wikilink to the emboldened repetitions of titles in the lead, nor to words in quotes, so it is, I think, linked at first mention other than these in both the lead and the main article. If I am wrong, please feel free to correct it for me, as it would mean that I am being tediously slow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there are two "chevaucée"s in the lead section and the link is currently under the second mention rather than the first.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Now moved to first mention. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like everything's sorted as far as my comments are concerned. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query to coordinators edit

@FAC coordinators: Hi all. Given Jo-Jo's comment above, I assume that this one is rolling towards a happy ending. If I am correct in this, I wonder if I might have permission to nominate my next one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 18 August 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/Black_Prince%27s_chevauchée_of_1355/archive1&oldid=911521413"