Talk:Breton Civil War, 1341

untitled

January 2013: substantial corrections in grammar and sentence structure in English on this date. 96.224.67.52 (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced material, expansion and move

This article has been uncited for 18 years and a fair bit of the material in it was not supported by either of the general sources given. So I have boldly removed the uncited material and added text that is cited. This has roughly doubled the length of the article, but I hope improved its quality - in Wikipedia terms. Comments, complaints, copy edits and suggestions are of course welcome.

This left the article not really fitting the title "Battle of Champtoceaux" - which now makes up a near-trivial part it. So I have boldly moved it to "Breton Civil War, 1341". Again I am (obviously) more than happy to discuss thoughts around this here. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Breton Civil War, 1341/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 17:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 16:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

And now for something completely different - this should be interesting to read. Parsecboy (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Um, like the Chinese curse? My first "new" article in 18 months, be gentle with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking Monty Python ;) Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You mean as in "No one expects the Breton Civil War!" Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Intro:
  • I don't think bold font is usually used if it's not the same as the article title - MOS:BOLD isn't exactly explicit, but that's my reading of it.

Drat ! I knew that. Done.

• • "the war between France and England which had broken out in 1337" - this is the Hundred Years' War, right? If so, I'd be more explicit

It seems a bit anachronistic to know 4 years in that it still has 110 years to go. Now more explicit. Better?

• • "It was generally assumed that Charles's claim would prevail" - I thought Charles was only involved as the basis for Joan's claim

Joan was a woman, so didn't count. I'll see if I can try and summarise it briefly enough for the lead. Tweaked.

• Background:
  • "Leaving Nantes John secured" - missing a comma after Nantes

Not in my opinion, but added. Actually not added. It looks really odd. (To the extent that if I saw it elsewhere I would probably copy edit.) Happy to discuss different schools of commaisation further though.

Probably an Engvar thing - happy to defer on that point.

• English intervention:
  • "John equivocated, he wished" - something here is not quite right. Swapping the comma for a semi-colon would fix, or rewording

I put a colon in[?]

• Images all check out (obviously).

• Sources all appear to be high quality. Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Cheers Parsecboy. I am sending this to FAC at some stage, so feel free to give it a further kicking. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Having a second look at the article, it occurs to me: since this is presumably a sub-article of War of the Breton Succession, shouldn't it be titled War of the Breton Succession, 1341?

And another thing - I'm guessing you have plans to create other articles in the series for each distinct phase of the war. Should the Template:Campaignbox Breton War of Succession be re-formated to include a section on the chronological order articles? Parsecboy (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice spot. That is deliberate. "War of the Breton Succession" was old fashioned but defensible when the article - and so all the sub-articles, links, campaign boxes etc - was created 20 years ago. Things have moved on, I can't find a single HQR. non-quote reference to it this century. "Breton Civil War" is the new consensus. This is a very unfrequented corner of Wikipedia, but I thought that renaming one article in this way might stir up some discussion, even a reason why I am wrong. Hence my comment on the talk page. I was planning on leaving it for two or three weeks to see what came up, then starting a more formal discussion about changing the name at all occurrences. What is the formal Wikipedia procedure for doing this? That make sense? I wasn't anticipating the GAN being picked up so rapidly. Although if this is promoted it may go some way to creating facts on the ground.

The campaign box is even more long term. I made a lot of changes to the Lancastrian 100 Years' War CB as I worked my way through those articles, so I have a grip on some of the issues involved. At the moment this article is linked via "Nantes" in the CB, which I can live with pending a resolution to the naming issue. I have another five Breton articles on my to do soon list; I was planning on seeing how they developed, what input there was from other editors etc before any major restructuring. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't checked the talk page there. That makes sense to me. I'd say go ahead and start a move discussion and post a notice at MILHIST - you may get some input, but in my experience, less-well-known topics don't generate a lot of interest in discussions like this. For what it's worth, I did a quick google ngrams search, and it does bear out what you say.

I think at this point, I'm happy to promote the article (and now I need to go read the instructions to remember how!) Parsecboy (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Parsecboy. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 03:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that when John of Montfort was captured in 1341 during the Breton Civil War his wife took command of the Breton army?

• Source: *Mortimer, Ian (2007). The Perfect King: The Life of Edward III, Father of the English Nation. London: Pimlico. ISBN 978-1-84413-530-1. Page 204.
• Sumption, Jonathan (1990). Trial by Battle. The Hundred Years' War. Vol. I. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 978-0-571-20095-5. Pages 389-390.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Laohushan culture

Improved to Good Article status by Gog the Mild (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 78 past nominations.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC).

• Hi Gog, good rescue on this article! Review follows: article promoted to GA on 14 November; article is well written and cited inline throughout to impeccable offline sources; I don't have access to any of the sources but more than happy to AGF there has been no copying from them (Earwig is happy also); hook is interesting and stated in the article; the hook was cited at the end of the paragraph, I have duplicated the references to the end of the sentence as required by the DYK rules; a QPQ has been carried out. Looks fine to me - Dumelow (talk) 11:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Dumelow, I appreciate that. My first DYK for 18 months and I am clearly not up to speed. I probably need to review a couple to get the hang of the current requirements. And yes, it did need a bit of TLC, I'll probably give it a run through FAC shortly. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)