Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Guînes (1352)/archive1
- 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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 26 May 2022 [1].
Siege of Guînes (1352) edit
- Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Just when you thought it was safe to visit FAC after I had declared that there would be no more of my Edwardian Hundred Years' War articles, I find one down the back of the sofa. A fairly typical event from this conflict, of which enough has survived into the modern sources to reconstruct reasonably well. The article passed GAN in September 2021 and ACR the following month. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support from Tim riley
edit
What a pleasure to have an encore! A few quibbles and cavils from me, as usual:
- Background
- "set at an exorbitant 80,000 écus" – I'm not sure about "exorbitant", which is a matter of opinion, perhaps? I'd be happier with some less judgemental indication of size, such as huge, enormous or (if it was) exceptionally high.
- If you prefer I could quote the source: '- according to the modern historian Jonathan Sumption a "prodigious" amount' -. But this seems a long-winded way of saying the same thing and what I have seems to me to be a reasonable paraphrase.
- I don't press the point, but "prodigious" need not imply "exorbitant", or vice versa. A fiver is not a prodigious sum, but being charged it for an ice-cream in a tourist trap is exorbitant. As you have a source for "prodigious" you could simply replace the one ten-letter word with the other. Tim riley talk 12:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Would that not raise plagiarism issues? Prodigious is not that common a word. "Whopping"? "Stonking"? Gone with "extremely high".
- I don't press the point, but "prodigious" need not imply "exorbitant", or vice versa. A fiver is not a prodigious sum, but being charged it for an ice-cream in a tourist trap is exorbitant. As you have a source for "prodigious" you could simply replace the one ten-letter word with the other. Tim riley talk 12:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- If you prefer I could quote the source: '- according to the modern historian Jonathan Sumption a "prodigious" amount' -. But this seems a long-winded way of saying the same thing and what I have seems to me to be a reasonable paraphrase.
- English attack
- "dereliction of duty at the behest of Charny" – I think I'd put a comma after duty, to make it more immediately clear that the execution rather than the dereliction was at Charny's behest
- You want more commas! My gast is flabbered. Added.
- French attack
- "French forces in the north east" – Ssilvers caught me out on this in the recent FAC of Arnold Bennett. Like you, I had it (or to be strictly accurate "south east") as two words, but the OED prescribes a hyphen.
- I care little. "South east" is an entirely acceptable usage.
- "Shortly after Charny abandoned the siege, leaving a garrison to hold the convent." – I had to go back to the start here; the full stop came as a surprise: I was expecting to learn what happened shortly after Charny abandoned the siege, leaving the garrison. For clarity, I think I'd make this "Shortly afterwards Charny abandoned…" If you were feeling kind to your American readers you could even put a comma after "afterwards".
- Fair point; "wards" added. I rarely feel kind towards my American readers where commas are concerned. [2]
- "English tower at Fretun" – Oh, come on! One of the joys of Eurostar is seeing the station signs at Calais-Fréthun and knowing you're headed to Paris in time for lunch. "Fretun", forsooth! I know you've blue-linked to Fréthun, but I mean, really!
- The source - Sumption, not an author I would care to cross citations with - is quite clear that it is spelt Fretun. As is the Israeli Medieval-warfare specialist Harari. As is The National Archives. I am afraid that you seem to be outvoted Tim.
- "fortifications on all of the access routes" – not sure why "of", here.
- Me neither. Expunged.
- Aftermath
- persuaded that another round of warfare may leave him" – seems to me, as a past event, to need "might" rather than "may".
- Changed.
That's all from me. A vivid and enjoyable article, as one expects from the respected Gog FA Factory. I'll look in again when you've had a moment to consider the above, not very earth-shattering, points. – Tim riley talk 19:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Tim riley: Just a pot boiling frippery, but I did enjoy putting it together. I am pleased that you enjoyed it too, and I appreciate the review. All points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Happy to support and let my minor quibbles pass. I take Ceoil's point about the judgment of the Milhist experts, but I can only comment as a layman, and I find the article balanced, widely sourced, splendidly illustrated, and a cracking read. To my inexpert eye it meets the FA criteria good and proper. Tim riley talk 22:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Ceoil edit
Not finding much baffling or to complain about, and agree with comments above that it is vividly written (eg "after six years of an uneasy and ill-kept truce")
- Lead: say what the Pale of Calais was
- I may be being slow here, but doesn't the sentence "the English expanded their enclave around Calais ... forming what became the Pale of Calais" do this. I am not sure that adding "- the Engish-controlled enclave around Calais" would help.
- Fine. I was thinking in terms of poignance of the word pale in the context of The_Pale#History. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I may be being slow here, but doesn't the sentence "the English expanded their enclave around Calais ... forming what became the Pale of Calais" do this. I am not sure that adding "- the Engish-controlled enclave around Calais" would help.
- Would like to see Siege of Guines (1558) created at least before if/when this goes to mainpage
- I am inclined to agree. If I ever forget and nominate this for TFA before that has happened, please feel free to remind me.
- and
personallyled his household knights and the Calais garrison - personally is implied
- Hmm. Ok.
- promptly' had Raoul executed for treason - promptly doesn't add much, we know the timeline, and the sentence would be more impactful without it
- Removed.
- Why the second comma - By coincidence, the English Parliament was scheduled to meet, with its opening session on 17 January.
- Cus the last seven words are a subordinate clause. If I had omitted "with its opening session" it wouldn't need a comma. As it is it does, because of grammar. And this from an editor with a deep dislike of unnecessary commas, per Lynn Truss.
- These are very trivial; like Tim, will revist in a few days with ay (prob) or nay (unlikely). Reason for holding off is that at 1700 words, waiting for milhist people to cover off on comprehensiveness. Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I umm'ed and ah'ed over whether to bring this to FAC, as it is slight. But as far as I can see it is both notable and contains all of the information extant on the siege. I sought Hog Farm's advice here in advance.
- Thanks for the copy edits, although I have tweaked a couple.
- By the bye, what does "tw" mean in your edit summaries?
- Hi Ceoil, nice to see you opining on one of mine again. All of your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Slight isn't an issue afaic as trusting on cromprhensivness. "tw" = tweak, no issues with the reverts. I had only intended to scan the lead but got sucked in by the story (we didn't learn about the 100 yr wars in 1980s IRL). Any roads, points addressed, Support. Ceoil (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Ceoil. And "I had only intended to scan the lead but got sucked in by the story" has left me well chuffed. (The history of the 100YW can make things like A Game of Thrones seem unimaginative.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support from Harrias
edit
- The lead and the infobox seem inconsistent regarding the time span: "May to July 1352" in the lead, "January–July 1352" in the infobox. I understand the discrepancy, as the castle was captured by the English in January, but that wasn't part of the siege, so having both as May to July feels best here.
- You are, as usual, quite right. Changed.
- "The siege was part of the Hundred Years' War and marked the resumption of full-scale hostilities after six years of an uneasy and ill-kept truce." Similarly, this could do with rephrasing slightly to emphasise that it was the English taking of the castle in January which prompted the resumption of full-scale hostilities, not the subsequent siege to attempt to retake it.
- No; the English capture may have been the spark, but the French move was what marked "the resumption of full-scale hostilities". The English attack was a run of the mill small-scale breach.
- Hmm, okay. "The resumption of hostilities caused fighting to flare up in Brittany and the Saintonge area of south-west France, but the main French effort was against Guînes." had suggested to me that it had already started before the French move, but I guess there is a difference between a "resumption of hostilities" and a "resumption of full-scale hostilities". Nevertheless, it feels like the lead is either telling a slightly different story, or at least, spelling the story out plainer, than the main body. To support the "full-scale" comment in the lead, could you make it clearer in the aftermath section that the actions describe count as "full-scale hostilities"? Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Strain as I might I am unable to see the discrepancy you perceive between the lead and the main body. No doubt this is my being too close to the article, but is there any chance you could help me out by unpacking how you are reading it a little more. When you suggest amending the aftermath, do you mean the first or second paragraph? (Or both?)
- Simply put, I just can't see where in the main body of the article it is demonstrated that this siege marked the resumption of full-scale hostilities. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I now see your point. Apologies for my earlier obtuseness. Strain as I might I can't find the source that explicitly states this. :-( Possibly I am developing false memory syndrome? Any hoo, I have backed away slightly from the claim with this edit. How's that look?
- Simply put, I just can't see where in the main body of the article it is demonstrated that this siege marked the resumption of full-scale hostilities. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Strain as I might I am unable to see the discrepancy you perceive between the lead and the main body. No doubt this is my being too close to the article, but is there any chance you could help me out by unpacking how you are reading it a little more. When you suggest amending the aftermath, do you mean the first or second paragraph? (Or both?)
- Hmm, okay. "The resumption of hostilities caused fighting to flare up in Brittany and the Saintonge area of south-west France, but the main French effort was against Guînes." had suggested to me that it had already started before the French move, but I guess there is a difference between a "resumption of hostilities" and a "resumption of full-scale hostilities". Nevertheless, it feels like the lead is either telling a slightly different story, or at least, spelling the story out plainer, than the main body. To support the "full-scale" comment in the lead, could you make it clearer in the aftermath section that the actions describe count as "full-scale hostilities"? Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- No; the English capture may have been the spark, but the French move was what marked "the resumption of full-scale hostilities". The English attack was a run of the mill small-scale breach.
- The infobox also uses the number of 115 for the strength of the English forces, but doesn't mention that additional forces harassed the French from Calais.
- Tweaked.
- "..but was extended repeatedly over the years until it was formally set aside in 1355." This feels odd in the background section, given that it happened after this siege. I wonder if it would be enough just to state "..but was repeatedly extended."
- Hmm. I see your point. Done.
- "..been set at an extremely high 80,000 écus, more than Raoul could afford." I'm not sure about "extremely high" here. It feels a bit 'pop history'. It was more than Raoul could afford, isn't that enough? If it being more than he could afford was the point, then "..at the intentionally high.." might be better.
- I had a disagreement with Tim over this. What I am trying to do is convey two, to my mind separate, points made by the sources. Firstly that 80,000 ecu was an unusually large sum for the time and place for a ransom. Sumption describes it as "prodigious". Secondly, that Raoul couldn't afford it. If I simply state that it was a large sum it, perhaps, leaves the reader thinking "Well, Raoul was a leading noble, perhaps John was right and he was a pro-English traitor. Similarly, if I go with just "unaffordable" a reader doesn't know if it was actually a reasonable, or even small, sum, but Raoul had gambling debts or whatever. Happy to discuss nuances of wording, but my preference would be to inform a reader of these nuances.
- Just read into the sources to get more background on this. In Sumption (1990), he quotes that Edward bought Raoul from Sir Thomas Holland for 80,000 florins, while in Sumption (1999), he says that Edward set the ransom "reputed to be 80,000 ecus". Two questions: firstly, are florins and ecus equivalent? Secondly, do you have anything else to back this up, because at the moment the source says "reputed", whereas the article makes it sound like a known fact. Unless there are more source to back this up, I think we need to soften the tone. As an interesting aside, and conjecture that we can't use in the article, was it normal for the King to buy up prisoners, or do we think he specifically did it with the plan to get Guines out of Raoul? Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, an ecu was approximately two English shillings or one florin. See eg Sumption 1999 page 592, who as usual includes some of the nuances. Note that Sumption page 72 specifies "gold écus", which I take to mean 'old' écus. Sentence tweaked and a "rumoured to have been" added.
- Yes, sale of prisoners was not unusual. Edward frequently brought out his lords' ransom rights and often made a loss, which it is assumed he made up with political advantage. As in this misfiring example. This has more if you're in the mood.
- Just read into the sources to get more background on this. In Sumption (1990), he quotes that Edward bought Raoul from Sir Thomas Holland for 80,000 florins, while in Sumption (1999), he says that Edward set the ransom "reputed to be 80,000 ecus". Two questions: firstly, are florins and ecus equivalent? Secondly, do you have anything else to back this up, because at the moment the source says "reputed", whereas the article makes it sound like a known fact. Unless there are more source to back this up, I think we need to soften the tone. As an interesting aside, and conjecture that we can't use in the article, was it normal for the King to buy up prisoners, or do we think he specifically did it with the plan to get Guines out of Raoul? Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- I had a disagreement with Tim over this. What I am trying to do is convey two, to my mind separate, points made by the sources. Firstly that 80,000 ecu was an unusually large sum for the time and place for a ransom. Sumption describes it as "prodigious". Secondly, that Raoul couldn't afford it. If I simply state that it was a large sum it, perhaps, leaves the reader thinking "Well, Raoul was a leading noble, perhaps John was right and he was a pro-English traitor. Similarly, if I go with just "unaffordable" a reader doesn't know if it was actually a reasonable, or even small, sum, but Raoul had gambling debts or whatever. Happy to discuss nuances of wording, but my preference would be to inform a reader of these nuances.
- "..and it seems that.." Editorial voice shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. If this is someone's opinion, then attribute that inline. If it is the commonly held view, then just state it as fact.
- Done.
Otherwise the prose looks good to me.
- A big one this: in the "Kaeuper, Richard W. & Kennedy, Elspeth (1996)" reference, you're missing a space after the comma in the location: "Philadelphia,Pennsylvania".
- Insufficient blank space in my articles is a common complaint.
- In "Livingstone, Marilyn & Witzel, Morgen (2004)" no need for the "(published 19 November 2004)", you already have the year of publication, that's enough.
- Sorry, not sure how that snuck in.
That's it from me. Nice work, as always. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Harrias. How delightful to be the beneficiary of one of your all too rare contributions. Thank you. All addressed. Does this also count as a source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: A couple of replies above. I wouldn't feel happy calling what I've currently done a source review, but it wouldn't take much more for me to expand it into one. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi again Harrias and apologies for taking so long to get back to you. A couple of tweaks implemented and explained above. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: A couple of replies above. I wouldn't feel happy calling what I've currently done a source review, but it wouldn't take much more for me to expand it into one. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Harrias. How delightful to be the beneficiary of one of your all too rare contributions. Thank you. All addressed. Does this also count as a source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support, all my issues are resolved. (Well, the issues I have with this article. *My* issues are another matter entirely.) Enjoy your hiking. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- The dead tree sources look good to me --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Guerillero, much appreciated. Any chance that you could add a "Source review - pass" in bold to your comment to aid the coordinators? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Source review - pass -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Guerillero, much appreciated. Any chance that you could add a "Source review - pass" in bold to your comment to aid the coordinators? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 15:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.