Talk:Breton Civil War, 1341/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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)