Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Auberoche

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Auberoche edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Battle of Auberoche (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has just passed a GAN and the assessor pressed me to enter it for FA. It seems to me to meet the standards, so have at it. One of the most important battles of the Hundred Years' War, the capstone of one of the most successful campaigns, the point at which the tide turned against the French, and virtually unknown, so read all about it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from CPA-5 edit

A nice page I would say let's start if you don't mind?

  • I'm not sure but shouln't the "English crown" be fully capitalised and become "English Crown"? Because it looks like an organisation like the Great Council which is an organisation right?
That is a very good question. It reads oddly to me when capitalised and I am not fully convinced, but I can't think of a logical reason to refute you, so changed.
  • "stages of the Hundred Years War" --> "stages of the Hundred Years' War"
Done.
  • "The status of the English king's" should it not be "The status of the English King's"?
No, IMO. It could be, and is, referring to any of a number of English kings, rather than being used as a short form for a specific king.
  • Good catch, my bad for the misunderstanding. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Gascons had had" two hads?
It's allowable grammar; but you are correct that it both reads oddly and is inconsistent with the rest of the paragraph, so changed.
  • Thanks, I didn't know it was allowable. I was just reading and I found it out and because I'm not a native English speaker was this new or a wrong sentence. In my native language its allowable too and I though in English it wasn't allowed to use it but I learn everyday something new. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only25 miles" --> "only 25 miles"
D'oh! Done.
  • "hill about a mile" in kilometers please?
You are good at picking these up. Embarrassing that I keep missing them.
  • "200–300 yards (200–300 m)" yards and metres are not the same.
To this level of accuracy they are. It would read oddly for me to write 182.88-274.32 m, or even, IMO, 180-270 m when we are talking about an extremely rough guide to how far the horses had to charge.

That's it, goodluck. CPA-5 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, thanks for that. As ever, I am open to discussion where I haven't implemented your suggestions, if you are not convinced by my thoughts.
If you have time to cast your eagle eyes over Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Berwick (1333), it would be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, you're welcome, I'm happy to help you. Secondly I'd like to have a new review normally it'd take until Thursday ('cause of my busy days in the last weeks) but because I have my break right now, I will have a look into it, tomorrow. So be prepared. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest scaling up the map
A further map has been added which may obviate the need for this. What do you think?
  • File:Combat_d'Auberoche,_October_1345.jpg: source link is dead, and can an approximate date be provided?
Source tracked down (quite a job) and added. Approximate date added. I would appreciate a check - I am still a tyro at this.
  • Arms should include a tag for the copyright status of the design
Umm. All are labelled up as free use on Commons. Beyond that I start to get lost. Is there a list of appropriate tags somewhere which I could consult? In which case I will see what I can do.
All are labeled as free use by the creator of the specific iteration presented here, but these iterations are derived from the original design, as used contemporaneously, right? Those will be out of copyright due to age, but we should still include tags saying so. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Understood. (I think.) Done.
  • File:Portrait_of_Henry,_Duke_of_Lancaster_-_William_Bruges's_Garter_Book_(c.1440-1450),_f.8_-_BL_Stowe_MS_594_(cropped).jpg: not seeing the given tag at the source site. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source seems to be tagged to me. Which obviously means that I am missing something. Would it be possible to spell out the problem in terms suitable for an idiot - ie me?
The image description page on Commons has a CC0 tag. However, when I click through to the provided source (the British Library), I'm not seeing that particular designation anywhere. I'm wondering whether I'm just missing it, or whether it isn't there, in which case I wonder where we're getting the CC0 tag from. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little stumbling round in the dark here, but when I go to the image and click on copyright - bottom right - then on copyright again I get this, which includes a "Creative Commons content" statement. I assume that this is where the tag in Commons comes from, but I don't know enough to tell if this is sufficient justification. Obviously the work is out of copyright, so I assume the issue is whether the photograph of the PD image is itself free use? 3.2.14 of this may be relevant here. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of that ToU doc is that content that is either public domain or under a Creative Commons license, will say so on the specific image description; this one doesn't. I don't doubt that the original is out of copyright, but the tagging doesn't seem to make sense as it stands. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria That actually makes sense to be - I am teachable! I have, with some trepidation, retagged. Does it make more sense now? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For our purposes that is perfect. (Regarding the photograph issue, you might find this useful). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria Thanks for the review. You seem to be tireless with these, and I appreciate it. Apologies for the delayed response, I missed your queries among those from the other assessors, and then the Combat d'Auberoche took a fair bit of tracking down. This is only my fourth ACR and the image use issue is still a bit of a black box to me. I think that once I have grasped something I am then implementing it correctly, but there seems to be quite a bit for me to pick up. If you could be patient with me I would be grateful. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Hi there. You are usually remarkably prompt with your responses, so I hope that you won't think that I am hassling you if I give you a reminder. If you are aware of the position and I am in a queue, apologies. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria. The two points above have been addressed, although I suspect that in the case of the second not satisfactorily. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Photograph issue: very useful; thank you. Cut and pasted into my resources folder. For clarity, is the image review now satisfactory? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Constantine edit

As usual, a finely written and well-referenced article. Not knowing much about the conflict, I had no trouble following it, and made only some minor copyedits and tweaks (addition of regnal dates). My only comments before supporting are the following:

  • "on the grounds that Edward was in breach of his obligations as a vassal" if some detail can be briefly given as to what this "breach" was, I'd recommend simply stating it. For that matter, was Edward in breach?
I could write a much longer article on that. Political will meets legal theory. Think Brexit, only worse. One source, Sumption, devotes 46 pages to this without coming to a conclusion. And he is a member of the Supreme Court of the UK. (Really.) Basically, Philip wanted the English to be in breach. (And his judges damn well better bear that in mind!) I have added a little, but really, it is a bottomless pit, and each piece of explanation literally asks more questions than it answers. No, I have taken it out again. Philip was looking for a casus belli, any casus belli. The actual cited reason was inconsequential. Can we stay with the deep historic reasoning and the politic implications suggested by "Philip's Great Council in Paris agreed that..."? (I have just found a 3 volume history on The Origins of the Hundred Yeara' War!)
Yeah, I anticipated that this would not be easy to cover. However, if Philip was indeed seeking a casus belli, and if the sources say that, I would simply add this in a brief note, e.g. "and determined to go to war with England" or something like this, before "on 24 May 1337 Philip's Great Council in Paris", to satisfy the curiosity of the average reader. If the motivation of Philip is made clear, then the details are irrelevant, and can be read up in the Hundred Years' War article. Constantine ✍ 17:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "duty levied by the English Crown on wine from Bordeaux was more than all other customs duties combined" is a figure available for the sum levied? Ditto for "Bordeaux, the capital of Gascony, was larger than London", "a reportedly vast army", "a very large detachment". It is always best to give an indication of what "large" or "vast" translates to in the given context.
Ah, you like the tricky questions today. Sadly, no data on specifics. It probably varied wildly anyway. The source is impeccable, but imprecise. See here, the second link, p xxxix, from "embarrassment" down for about a page. I wanted to stress the enormous importance of Gascony to Edward, and reckon that I have milked the sources about as far as they will go. (Most are vaguer that Rodger.) That said, any suggestions for different wording are welcome.
"a reportedly vast army": nobody knows, nobody counted. The chronicles note these things in self serving hyperbole and I rely on the professional historians to interpret. Occasionally they make an informed calculation and I can seize on it, but usually they stay well away. (Quite a few English muster and pay records survive, so figures there are better.) French detachments would drift in and out. I seriously doubt that a French commander knew at any given time how many men he had to +/- 20%. The main reason that the French total in the battle is consistently given as 7,000 seems to be because there was a recorded body and prisoner count afterwards.
The following year the main French army in Gascony was estimated at 15,000-20,000, so I would guess "a reportedly vast army" at the upper end of that. Given that everyone seems to agree that 7,000 French fought at Auberoche I would guess that "a very large detachment" at about the same size. I have boldly inserted a figure for the army, but wimped out re the detachment. If you think that the forgoing is solid enough to justify actual numbers in the article then I shall insert them.
Population. I have found an author stupid/brave enough to estimate the population of London, but not Bordeaux, so that has gone in.
No problem if you don't have the figures, that's to be expected, I was simply double-checking. It's simply that when there are numbers, they should be mentioned; a "large army" is a different thing at different times and for different nations, and the average modern, non-expert reader won't have a point of reference either way. Constantine ✍ 17:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whenever an English army campaigned on the continent it had operated in northern France." this is probably meant to describe events hitherto, so I'd suggest "whenever an English army had previously campaigned on the continent it had operated in northern France"
Oops. Completely correct. Done - albeit slightly differently to your suggestion.
  • "whichever country was stronger", "country" is a bit anachronistic here, I'd suggest "monarch" instead; this occurs twice, perhaps rephrase entirely the second time around?
Done, and done.

Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Constantine. Thanks for that. You really got into the article and asked the difficult questions. As a good reviewer should. French record keeping of the period was not so much poor as self seekingly non-existent, so few sources go near a solid, non-English number. See what you think. (You are lucky mostly dealing with Byzantines, who ran a bureaucracy, and Venetians, who were accountants!) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes look good. If you think you can put in Philip gunning for war, then I'd be happy, but this is nothing to stop me from supporting. Constantine ✍ 17:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Constantine: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Well done, once again! Constantine ✍ 18:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support:Comments: edit

It seems clear why the British won this battle; according to the image at the top, they had airborne troops.

Sadly parachutes had not been invented at the time.

I'm concerned primarily with readability, so here are the things I found:

  • the first two paragraphs of the Background are jumbled together. I think this would be improved by splitting off a new para at "Towards the end of 1336", and moving "The status of" and "French monarchs systematically" to the start of the new para.
Done.
  • the new para should be grouped with the other statements about the start of the war, so it would make sense to move it above "Although Gascony was the cause of the war", and splitting off "During the first half of the 14th century" as its own para directly under "A large proportion" and then putting it with " 1339 the French besieged Bordeaux" at the bottom. I realize this may be confusing, would you like me to implement this and then revert?
Done. If I have it wrong, feel free to correct.
  • "was extremely unclear" - remove "extremely", "anachronistic" - I get the idea, but I'm not sure this is clear to most readers. I had to look it up, and I love jargon.
Really?[!] You need to stay in more. Done. (A quick search shows it turning up a lot in articles American Civil War, Buddhism, Supreme Court of the United States, Martin Luther, Catholic Church etc, etc. And that's not considering variations such as anachronism etc.)
  • "Bordeaux, the capital of Gascony, was larger than London, which had a population of 50,000" I think you're saying London was 50k? It's not entirely clear in the context.
How's that?
  • The map of the regions is in french, so I suggest adding french terms for the areas where they are mentioned, mostly in the "plans" section.
Done. Bracketed at first mention under "plans".
  • "The French, hearing of Derby's arrival" - para break.
Done.
  • "sallied with all the mounted men he could muster. Taken in the rear" - by Hallam? Or by the "small number of Anglo-Gascon infantry"? It is not clear which of these caused the collapse.
Reworded. Clearer?
  • "Despite outnumbering the Anglo-Gascon force eight to one he retreated to Angoulême and disbanded his army" - damb. Maybe para break here?
I have broken it, but a sentence earlier that you suggested. Does it read ok? ("damb"?)

That's about it! I also made two very minor edits. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maury Markowitz. Thanks for going through the article and for your copy edits. Appreciated. Your points all addressed and some comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My only remaining issue is with this section:

Derby made a cavalry charge ... A small number of Anglo-Gascon infantry had followed a path in the woods to emerge in the French rear ... Hallen ... sallied with all the mounted men he could muster and took the French in the rear. The French defence collapsed and they routed, pursued by the English cavalry.

So... 1) there are two sets of troops attacking from the rear, and 2) there are two groups of cavalry. So is it all of the cavalry pursuing? And was it the infantry's attack, or Hallam's, or both, that caused the collapse? I know there may be no answers to these questions in the available sources, but if its there I think this could be clarified. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also re-worded the border issue, which I think now better explains it, feel free to RV. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maury Markowitz.
  • Border. IMO it now understates the extent to which there was nothing even remotely resembling what we would call a border. But I will think on how I can express that both clearly and succinctly, rather than banging in the first thing that comes to mind.
  • Pursuit. Who knows; not recorded. Probably some of each.
  • Attack in rear. Hallen's charge was the final straw, a couple of hours or so into the fight.

    A small number of Anglo-Gascon infantry had followed a path in the woods to emerge in the French rear and now attacked from the north west. The fighting continued in the area of the camp for some time. Hallen realised that the French troops guarding his exit from the castle were either distracted or had been drawn off to join the fighting; he sallied with all the mounted men he could muster and took the French in the rear. The French defence collapsed and they routed, pursued by the English cavalry.

    To me the sentence "The fighting continued in the area of the camp for some time." after "... to emerge in the French rear and now attacked from the north west." makes it clear that it wasn't the "small" force that broke the French. I have given it a go at making this even clearer, but I am probably too close to it. See what you think.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz:
  • Your border explanation does make it clearer. I have added an additional sentence and that is probably about as good as we are going to get.
  • Pursuit. No, no record. I imagine that it was an undifferentiated mob of cavalry.
  • Tweaked the wording a bit to try to clarify just what the final straw was, as this is - more or less - in the record.
Gog the Mild (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: Thanks again for your input. I was wondering if you felt that the changes made have got this article up to a level at which you felt able to support it for A class. If not, would you be able to identify what further improvements might be able to bring it up to that level? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes sorry, forgot to end it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Australian Rupert edit

Support: G'day, Gog, nice work. I looked mainly at sources. I have a few minor points, otherwise it looks good to go to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bordeaux and Bergerac, Dordogne are overlinked
Done.
  • for citation # 19 (Ormrod 2004) is there a page number that could be added?
I don't remember that the on line version has page numbers. However, I am having trouble with my library card and can't get in to check. So I have lost Ormrod and replaced it with another source. It is not as if where I used Ormrod was a matter of any scholarly debate.
No worries, I would be fine with you keeping Ormrod without pages if it is the online version you cited... I understand that sometimes that is necessary. But your solution works fine, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Sources section, the title of the DeVries work should use title case capitalisation for consistency
Done.
  • same as above for Lacey
Done.
  • in the Sources, remove the second authorlink for Rogers
Done.
  • in the Sources, the date for Prestwich doesn't need to be so precise: 2007 is fine
Done.
  • in the Sources, the hyphenation of ISBNs has some variation. For instance compare Rodger (which has no hyphenation) with Prestwich (which has four hyphens) with Gribit which has one.
Apologies. Standardised.
  • in the Sources, move the link for Boydell Press to the first mention
Done.
  • for the Fowler thesis, can it be made clearer it was a PhD? I think this can be done by adding "|type=PhD"
Done. It now shows that it is a PhD, but not that it is a thesis. I assume that can be taken as implied?
I didn't realise it would display like that, sorry. I have tweaked it slightly so the word "thesis" shows also. I'm not sure if that is necessary, but it seems like it is clearer that way. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • was Fowler's thesis accepted?
Oh yes. He used it as the spine of The King's Lieutenant: Henry of Grosmont, First Duke of Lancaster, 1310–1361, the first detailed account of a single, pre-Poitiers, Gascon campaign since the 15th century. I prefer the thesis - the prose is mostly identical, but he cut the thesis down to size for the book and I find a lot of the tables and detail he removed useful. Let me know if you would like more information - several of the leading experts in the field explicitly praise his work, even though one would normally have thought that it was a little dated. A sample of his subsequent books and papers. He went on to become the Professor of Medieval History at Edinburgh University.
That's fine: great work digging that up! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • except for the above question, the sources appear to be reliable to me as a lay person
Hi AustralianRupert many thanks for bringing your forensic gaze to bear on this. I think that I have corrected the sloppiness which you identified above. Sourcing was a bit tricky - down to personally emailing professors to request copies of out of print papers - but I think that I got there. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Gog. I think you have done a fantastic job, and I don't think you are sloppy at all. These are just minor nitpicks to hopefully just polish it a little. We all make mistakes in our articles, and need a reviewer's eyes to spot them. That's really the strength of Wikipedia, IMO. If we were writing offline, we wouldn't have others to help pick up these things. Anyway, mate, keep up the great work! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AustralianRupert. I find it frustrating that I can't spot things in my own articles that I can in others, even though I know that this is normal. And that I seem to keep making the same "errors" *rolly eyes". I guess that being very new to this level, and new enough to Wikipedia at all, I am not sure what level of completeness it is normal/acceptable to present an article at. You reassure me that I am getting my nominations near enough to acceptable, but I shall still try to do better. You are, of course, correct, that this probably the greatest strength of Wikipedia; by the time an article gets through this stage it has had a lot of eyes on it. Thanks again. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • Page number ranges in the refs need to be complete, so 330–331 vice 300–31
Well, well. I didn't know that. Quite a few aren't, including those in my solitary FAC. Done.
It's a fairly new change. One that I would have opposed if I'd noticed it, but I'm all about the least amount of typing possible for cites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add "|lastauthoramp=y" to the cite book template with multiple authors to match the ampersand used in the cites
Done.
  • Curious that you've chosen to use only one hyphen in your ISBNs. People usually use all or none, but so long as you're consistent, it's all good.
When I have skipped hyphens altogether I have been pick up, by experienced editors and told to consistently use all hyphens or just one after the 978. I long since decided to, where I reasonably could, take the line of least resistance during assessments.
  • Why are you only using initials for Prestwich? You also need to add the series title for that book
I thought that was what was on the title page, but its not. Possibly I inherited it and just glossed over it when I thought that I was checking. Done
  • Why is the article title in Rogers, etc. italicized?
Because a b!@@#y bot keeps coming along and changing "cite journal" to 'cite book'. I thought that I had bot-proofed it, but clearly not. Done. (Although it may not stick.)
Yeah, we probably need a cite template just for annuals like the JMMH.

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: Many thanks for the source review. A usually thankless task, so can I express how much I appreciate it. I learnt three new things from your five points, so thank you. Now I just need to retain them in my sieve of a head. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to implement them. I know that I have!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. They had hung on a spurious "edit clash". Now showing. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go. Very nice article, BTW.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Auberoche&oldid=872908632"