Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Sluys/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 1 March 2020 [1].

Battle of Sluys

edit
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first significant clash of the Hundred Years' War was this naval battle. It was a disaster for the French, who lost 90% of their ships captured and 90% of their men killed, including the two senior military officers of the realm. Illustrating why the war was to last so long, it had virtually no operational or strategic effect. I took this through GAN in July 2018, ACR in July 2019, have worked on it since and think that it is ready for the scrutiny of FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

edit
  • DeVries — what is the evidence that the website has permission to post the pdf? Most pdfs on sites other than the author's or publisher's are copyvio.
None. I wasn't aware of any policy or guideline that put an onus on the editor to ensure that an external webpage they link to holds the copyright or a permission for the contents.
Please see WP:ELNEVER
Well, well. Always something new to learn on Wikipedia. Thank you. De Re Militari are pretty reliable, but I can find no definitive proof that they have formal permission, other than a catch-all "We thank the authors and publishers for their permission in republishing this material" so I have removed the link.
  • Checked some refs from DeVries.
    • Where on page 223 does it state that there are "numerous" contemporary accounts? I can see that she says there are accounts from all three involved countries, but I'm not sure that supports "numerous".
Fair point, I was probably trying to simplify the referencing. He mentions 2 foreign sources on page 225; 12 English sources on pages 225-228; 6 Low Country sources on pages 229-230; 5 French sources on page 231; and the three iterations of Froissart on page 233. There are more, but this seemed sufficient to establish numerous. (And this is without going to other (secondary) sources which mention contemporary sources DeVries doesn't.) Citing "pp. 225-231, 233" seemed unhelpful, but, as I said, I see your point. Should I amend the cite?
Yes, I think that would be better. buidhe 18:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Hi Buidhe, that is an impressive and swift service. Two good if slightly tricky points. See my responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: both of your points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Sources look reliable and most are recent. There is a considerable number of sources cited and it doesn't seem that the nominator missed anything major that could be added to the article. buidhe 20:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim riley

edit

An excellent article, vivid as ever from Gog, and evidently comprehensive and balanced. A few very minor points on the prose:

  • Opposing navies
  • You might give the Channel its full name and link it here – first mention in main text
Done.
  • "Genoa and Monaco" – better to move the later links to these two places up to these first mentions.

Done

  • Earlier activities
  • Link Portsmouth?
Done.
  • "Edward was able … Edward wished" – perhaps "he" the second time?
Done.
  • Sources
  • "accounts of the battle … after the battle" – perhaps "afterwards" the second time?
Done.
  • "English; French; or Flemish" – the semicolons look a bit odd here. Commas would suffice, I think, and look more natural.
Done.
  • "they lack detail; so much so" – the semicolon is definitely wrong here, I think. It deprives "so much so" of a main verb to relate to. A comma or dash is wanted instead.
I disagree that it is wrong (would a full stop be incorrect?) but have replaced it with a comma.
  • Prelude
  • "On 10 June the Council received news that the Great Army of the Sea had arrived at Sluys, the main port of Flanders, on the 8th with consternation" – as consternation was not a cargo I'd move it forward: "On 10 June the Council received with consternation news that the Great Army of the Sea had arrived at Sluys, the main port of Flanders, on the 8th."
That made me smile - "Right then guv'nor, where you want this 5 tuns of consternation. In with the panic and alarm?" Done.
  • Aftermath
  • "Philip ordered that Barbavera be arrested for desertion". Not clear if the order was carried out.
Explanatory footnote added.

That's all I can find to quibble about. I'll look in again with a view to adding my support. – Tim riley talk 14:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Tim, and thank you as always for your tireless picking up of my flaws and infelicities. All of your points addressed above, I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to support the promotion of this article to FA. It is balanced, clear, well illustrated, broadly referenced, evidently comprehensive, and a really good read. It meets all the FA criteria, in my opinion. I look forward to further articles in the series. Tim riley talk 15:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
  • Marking my spot here, I'm usually too late in the game. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A modern model of a galley" Seems like a very specific galley with those crosses? Maybe an image more relevant or more general can be found?
Done. Actually found an image of a 14th-century Genoese galley.
Nice! FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the two ship image can state their relevance and context in the captions?
I am not entirely sure what you are after here. Do you mean add to the galley cation something like 'The ex-corsair Pietro Barbavera commanded six similar vessels during the battle'?
Yeah, something like that. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Good spot. Done. And in three other FAs where I also missed it
  • "Edward III" Probably good to note when this painting is from, as it might otherwise be thought to be contemporaneous?
Good point. Done.
  • "use in the Channel" Spell out and link at first mention outside intro?
Done.
  • "who were normally also drawn from Genoa, Monaco" You link these places at second rather than first mention.
Done.
  • "When the mutinous sailors arrived back in Genoa they led an uprising which overthrew the ruling patricians" Interesting, anything to link?
Sadly not, it doesn't even get a line in History of Genoa.
  • "and his Chronicles contain information" Perhaps give a year for this work?
Ha. Published in installments over half a century. Collected at, at least, three different times for republishing. These three iterations commonly baldly contradict each other. I could add "contemporary"? (He was employed in Edward's court as something like an official historian from 1361-1369.)
Contemporary could work. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • This very old Commons upload (2006) could need an info template, looks very confusing now:[2]
I noticed that, and if I had had the faintest idea of how to tidy it I would have done. I've had a go, what do you think?
Looks better, I think this link should be added to the source field:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thanks.
Hi FunkMonk and many thanks for going through this. I have, I think, addressed all of your points above, one of them with a query. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, answered some, and last points are below. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several English noblewomen were killed when their ship was either boarded or sunk." Why were they on these ships?
Ha. I have just addressed that for Harrias. I wrote: They were part of the King's court, which normally travelled with him. The source says that they wee on their way to join his queen, who was already in Flanders. It is a pretty inconsequential detail, so if you feel that it calls for much explanation I would rather delete than get too far off topic. (Another source states "the ship carrying the King's wardrobe was attacked, captured and all the crew except one woman and two men put to death." This may have been a different ship - the author is concentrating on the loss of the wardrobe records.)
Could warrant a footnote? I think it would be a shame to remove valid info. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FunkMonk. Footnote added. See what you think.
  • "with their longbows" links to English longbow while "A London longbowman reported" links to Longbow. Is the second, less specific link needed?
Double ha. While editing for Harrias I spotted that myself and corrected it.
  • "their Flemish allies" You mention them twice before this, but only link them down here.
The first mention of "Flemings" is linked to Flemish people; "Flemish allies is linked to County of Flanders#The crisis of the 14th century (1278–1384). I am certainly open to changing either or both.
  • "the River Orwell" Only linked in intro.
It looks linked in the main article to me.
  • "and defeat them in detail" Link and state outside intro too?
"The English were able to manoeuvre against the French and defeat them in detail" is the summary of the first three paragraphs of the "Battle" section.
  • "The battle gave the English fleet naval supremacy in the English Channel" Only stated in intro.
Very true. Now corrected.
Thanks FunkMonk for picking up on my sloppiness. That has definitely improved things. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, seems like some of my last points were sloppy themselves. I've added one answer, and when that's addressed I'll support. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit

Support from Harrias

edit
  • The infobox states that the French had 213 ships, lost 190 and had 166 captured. That doesn't add up.
I'm rubbish at maths. Clarified.
  • "..with most of the French ships being captured.." Avoid Noun plus -ing.
OK.
  • Wikilink for amidships please.
I can link to Glossary of nautical terms, but not to amidships. Or if I can I don't know how.
Glossary of nautical terms#amidships should work. (Per the blurb at Template:Term#Linking to the term, the glossary term in the link has to be lower-case.) Harrias talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Done.
  • "..made them superior to the oared vessels.." What oared vessels? I assume this is referring to the galleys, but at this point in the article, at least, we haven't been told that galleys are oared.
Good point. Oars introduced at first mention of galleys.
  • Consider adding {{See also|English Channel naval campaign, 1338–1339}} for the Earlier activities section.
Scratches head. I thought that I had done. Thanks.
  • Redlink the Christopher and Cog Edward, which sound like they are notable ships.
Done.
  • "..by the Breton knight Hugues Quiéret, the Admiral of France and.." Comma needed after "France".
Done.
  • "..with his main force in north eastern France.." Earlier, you hyphenated "south-western". Be consistent.
Hyphenated.
  • "On 10 June the Council received news that the Great Army of the Sea had arrived at Sluys, the main port of Flanders, on the 8th with consternation." The structure of this sentence makes the "with consternation" a bit odd stuck on the end. Can it be rephrased to flow better?
Done, although I don't recall doing it.
  • "As they blocked the roadstead a further 10 ships reinforced them, bringing the total French strength to 213 ships." Earlier we were told the fleet was a "collection of 200 ships", and that "Contemporary French documents record the fleet's size as 202 vessels". The sums don't add up here.
Philip ordered the collection of 200; he got 203 - lucky chap. So not inconsistent.
The source says it increased to 213; I back-calculated and got 10! Maths - meh! Well picked up. Corrected.
  • "The men in charge of the shipping arrangements were personally abused by the King." This just begs the question: Why? (I guess because they were struggling to muster enough ships?)
The source say "Edward, in a vile temper ... Edward personally confronted the mariners of Great Yarmouth, who had so far provided less than half the ships which they had found for his service in 1338." So your guess is pretty strongly implied, but the source seems to go out of its way not to link the two facts, and it seemed to me to be OR to do so. I am certainly open to persuasion.
Hold on, reading the source, it expands to say that he "accused them of settling their advice in advance with the Archbishop". So, "were personally abused by the King, as he suspected them of conspiring with Stratford to obstruct him." Or some such? Harrias talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded on what I think the source is saying Edward said in the article along similar lines, see what you think.
  • Wikilink Yarmouth.
Done.
  • Does the Sumption ref support the fact that Yarmouth was "the largest port in England"? I can't see it in the 1999 paperback which I can view on Google Books. Similarly, "To general amazement" doesn't seem to be supported by the 1999 version, but I appreciate both might be in the 1990 original.
Apologies, I was reading what I expected to read. The "largest port in England" source is Sumption page 176. Now added.
"To general amazement" is a paraphrase of "truly remarkable".
My issue with this is that I read "To general amazement" to mean that those at the time found it amazing. Whereas "The result of all this activity was truly remarkable" sound to me to be Sumption's (ie, a modern) opinion. Harrias talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about if I replace "To general amazement" with 'In a feat which the modern historian Jonathan Sumption describes as "truly remarkable"?
Yeah, something along those lines would work for me. Harrias talk 12:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..size of the fleet. 66 ships which sailed.." Don't start a sentence with a figure. (MOS:NUMNOTES).
Tweaked.
  • Wikilink reconnoitre.
Done.
  • "..organised itself in three lines across the 3-mile wide (5 km) estuary.." Three parallel lines, perpendicular to the inlet, or isn't there detail to confirm this?
Absolutely not. (And if there were I wouldn't believe it. Per our discussion on "shambolic".)
Was this a common tactic at the time? Can we draw parallels to other battles which have plans? At the moment we have no idea whether the intention was for the three lines to be parallel, if it was in essence one long line in which they were just joined in three parts, two in a chevron narrowing to the third, one at the front flanked by the other two in support, so on and so forth. If the answer is that we just don't have a clue, so be it. But if there is any inkling we have or can provide, it would be useful. Harrias talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I understand. I think. The plan was for three parallel lines, with a handful of larger ships slightly advanced, across the narrowest part of the estuary. I had thought that clear from "the French fleet organised itself in three lines across the 3-mile wide (5 km) estuary of the Zwin". Clearly you don't think so. I don't imagine that the reality ever came close to the plan, and by the time the English attacked it was a shambles. ("After nearly a day linked by chains and ropes, and with wind and rain working against them, the French ships had been driven to the east of their starting positions and become entangled with each other.") I have changed the wording to "When the English were sighted the French manoeuvred to bar Edward's way to the port of Sluys. Their fleet organised itself in three lines, one behind the other, each stretching across the 3-mile wide (5 km) estuary of the Zwin."
Thanks. That was what I assumed they were planning, but without it stated explicitly, I wasn't sure. Harrias talk 12:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..while supporting troops poured in arrows or bolts." I'm not sure that "poured" works here.
No? A contemporary described it as "an iron shower", a participant as "like hail". Rewritten to be more objective - I think that the message still gets across: the English were firing over 10,000 arrows per minute.
Honestly, "..while over 10,000 arrows and bolts per minute were fired in by supporting troops." Sounds more impressive, and less metaphoric, to me. Harrias talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My main issue here is that this usage doesn't meet any of the dictionary definitions of "pour", which related to liquids or precipitation. Therefore, the usage must be metaphorical, which isn't encyclopaedic language. Harrias talk 12:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I'm interested on your thoughts on this. Harrias talk 18:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with metaphors as being encyclopedic. To me the point is whether they are comprehensible. Goodness knows there is enough non-metaphoric language on Wikipedia which isn't. If they are readily understandable and ease the passage of the clunky facts they surround, then they are, IMO, a net positive. As you, as a reviewer, object, I have changed it; but I feel that the article is the worse for it, by which I mean that it does a less good job of conveying to a reader what happened. (And is less true to the contemporary sources.)
Re Dictionary definitions. Wiktionary, second usage: "To send forth as in a stream or a flood; to emit; to let escape freely or wholly." It gives an illustrative quote from Shakespeare: "How London doth pour out her citizens." Obviously citizens aren't "related to liquids or precipitation" ... Or the seventh usage: "To move in a throng, as a crowd." Or from my Britannic Oxford Dictionary: one definition "to discharge copiously, or in rapid succession"; an example quoted: "Troops poured towards the Rhine, Macauley". Or, according to other dictionaries one can pour out money, or one's hopes; or "pour it on"; or "complaints poured in", or "donations poured in"; or "Election results are beginning to pour in". I have not yet found a dictionary, paper or on line, which restricts pour to liquids. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I'm a reviewer, yes, but that doesn't make me right: if you think that it makes it worse, then don't do it! At worst, I would abstain from voting, as one issue like this is never going to make me oppose the article. In this case, I can accept your argument. I'm not 100% sure that I agree with it, but having discussed it, I would support the promotion with the original wording. Harrias talk 20:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I phrased myself too curtly. I know that I get too close to "my" articles and my wording, and sometimes it is difficult to let go. Even when the issue is inconsequential. And getting stubborn over trivia deters reviewers from visiting my future nominations, even if I "win" the argument. I shall put "pour" back in, even though I finally found a dictionary which restricts its use to liquids - Cambridge on line. And thanks for maintaining a Wikipedian point of view. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I shall leave it as is. As a lesson to myself not to be pig headed. And it reads fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, I use the Cambridge online dictionary... Anyway, I think this is pretty much there, but I want to have another pass all the way through before I'm sure! Harrias talk 20:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and the Genoese managed to board and capture two English ships." This threw me off. Although we are told in the Opposing navies section that "The French galleys were supplemented by galleys hired from Genoa and Monaco.", we are later told that "The new regime was disinclined to enter into new contracts with the French. When several ship captains were persuaded to, they were bribed by English agents to renege." So... the assumption I had was that the Genoese weren't supporting the French in this battle.
Good point. Changed to "Barbavera had refused to tie his highly manoeuvrable galleys in with the French ships and the they managed to board and capture two English ships."
  • "Several English noblewomen were killed.." Was it common for noblewomen to go into battle at the time? This statement begs more questions than it answers.
They were part of the King's court, which normally travelled with him. The source says that they wee on their way to join his queen, who was already in Flanders. It is a pretty inconsequential detail, so if you feel that it calls for much explanation I would rather delete than get too far off topic. (Another source states "the ship carrying the King's wardrobe was attacked, captured and all the crew except one woman and two men put to death." This may have been a different ship - the author is concentrating on the loss of the wardrobe records.)
Hi Harrias. Funkmonk has picked up the same point above and I have added an explanatory footnote. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that works for me. Harrias talk 12:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and the water was reported to be thick with blood and corpses." Reported by who?
  • Provide a wikilinks for Norman and Picard. (The Norman one will need to go in the Earlier activities section.
Done.
  • Our article has almshouse as one word, and a couple of dictionaries seem to suggest that is the prevailing form.
Done.
  • Is there a more accessible word or phrase we can use rather than "interdicted", or at least a wikilink we can provide?
Linked.
  • "..revoked some privileges of some of the ports.." I'm not sure if this is awkward repetition, or clever repetition to show how toothless his efforts were. On my first read, it seemed awkward, but now I quite like it.
Unlike some of the tosh I bung out, that phrase was thoughtfully crafted. I'm pleased to hear that it worked.

That's my lot at the moment! (Oh, I'm doing the WikiCup, and will claim points for this review, yar-de-yar-da.) Harrias talk 15:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well earned and hard earned points they will be. Many thanks for your usual painstaking review. The article is the better for it. All of your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to a couple. Harrias talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: And responded in turn. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just running through again:

  • "By English common law, the King was required.." I'm not keen on "King" being capitalised here; it would seem to work better as lower-case. That said, the sentence is a bit ambiguous like this; I would recommend changing it to either "By English common law, the monarch was required.." or "By English common law, Edward was required.." depending on which meaning you actually want.
Ha. I had a minor debate with CPA-5 below over this. How would both of you feel about "the crown"?
That would work for me. Harrias talk 18:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. CPA-5, that OK with you? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually a type of angary - which word I don't wish to use for obvious reasons - so I have linked to that
  • "In 1339 it was the turn of Hastings. [PARAGRAPH BREAK] In 1339 there had.." I'm not keen on the fragmented sentence at the end of the paragraph, but that's probably just personal preference, but the repetition is particularly jarring due to the short sentence used.
Changed first instance to "The following year".
  • "..202 vessels: six galleys, seven royal warships, 22 oared barges and 167 merchant vessels.." Comparable numbers should be formatted the same, so use "6 galleys, 7 royal warships".
Oops. Fixed.
  • "John de Stratford, Archbishop of Canterbury, a senior adviser, insisted.." I'm not keen on this construction, I wonder if it could be rewritten to flow a little better?
Any better?
Maybe. I think it's making the best of a bad situation, and I can't come up with anything better. Harrias talk 18:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:-)
  • "The traditional view is that the attack took place at 3:00 pm[39][note 2] After.." Missing a full-stop.
Inserted.
  • "The entire Zwin estuary has silted up since the battle, and modern Sluis is 8 kilometres (5 mi) from the sea." This single-sentence paragraph is a bit odd tacked on the end. The convert template also needs switching around to match the others which are "imperial (metric)".
I know. But it doesn't fit in with anything else. I have moved it to the end of the first paragraph of Prelude - any less incongruous?
Switched.
Yup, that seems better to me. Harrias talk 18:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not much more, and most of it is probably me making something of nothing. Harrias talk 08:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I am grateful. Useful input and cuts down on the amount of my, by now traditional, sloppiness. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:Galera_Oliveta_1302.jpg caption needs editing for grammar
I have removed this image.
  • File:Galera_Oliveta_1302.jpg is incorrectly claimed as own work
I have removed this image
  • File:Modell_der_Bremer_Kogge_von_1380.jpg is own photo, but what is the status of the model itself? Is this a museum piece?
It is a self-made model. I missed that the photographer has not explicitly claimed it as their own work. I have removed the image.
  • File:Edward_III_noble.jpg: coins are not typically considered 2D works.
Yes. You pointed that out when you generously did an image review at ACR and I had thought I had resolved it then, but obviously not. 2D tag removed, Numismatic Group tag left.

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in two new images to replace the two removed. "File:Hugues Quieret - Versailles (cropped).jpg" I hope is straight forward: the photograph has a Creative Commons licence and the original sculptor died in 1858.
The other is "File:Ubena von Bremen Kiel2007 1 (cropped).jpg", a photograph of a modern reproduction of a wreck dated to 1380.
Hi Nikkimaria. Thanks for looking at these and for being so tactful in pointing out that I had made a Horlicks of them. See my comments above. I believe that things are now in order and would be grateful if you could relook at them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by L293D

edit

Not much to be said here, but:

  • particularly when they were fitted with the castles from which missiles could be fired - "missiles" seems a bit odd here, could it be replaced by a synonym?
I am not sure why, but I have gone for more specific. Does that work for you?
My concern was with the use of the word "missile"; while it is technically appropriate, I feel the second dictionary definition, "a weapon that is self-propelled, carrying explosives", is the one most people think about. I would suggest replacing with "projectile".
L293D That use of missile hadn't occurred to me. Does my change from "the castles from which missiles could be fired or stones dropped on to enemy craft alongside" to "the castles from which arrows or bolts could be fired or stones dropped on to enemy craft alongside" remove the ambiguity? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works for me. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wagner 2006 - suggest making consistent with other citations by putting the page numbers in the reference.
Er, they are already there. "pp. 286–287".
I think the point L293D is making is that in citation #55, a similar example, it uses "Hannay 1911, p. 246.", whereas citation #55 is just "Wagner 2006." Both are fine, but they are not consistent with each other. Harrias talk 16:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Understood. Thank you. Corrected. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi L293D. Thanks for taking a look at this. Your two points addressed. Anything else?
Looks good. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
Hi CPA-5. Good to see you casting your beady eyes over one of my nominations again.
  • Link the Dutch language.
No. I think that it is common enough. Anyway, those IPA templates can't be linked.
  • Damn that's the first time I've heard from a native English speaker that the Dutch language is too common.
  • Unlink French because it's too common.
Oops. Well spotted. Done.
  • The cogs had a displacement of 200–300 long tons (203–305 t) Link both tons.
Can't be done while using the convert template. So either way I go I break a Wiki-policy. I don't mind which, so let me know if you would prefer me to not use "convert", and I can then link.
@Gog the Mild: How about 200–300 long tons (203–305 t)? Harrias talk 19:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Clever. Done.
  • By English common law, the king was required to compensate the owners --> "By English common law, the King was required to compensate the owners"?
No. By common law, any and every king was expected to do this, it wasn't specific to Edward III.
  • Thought it was the title king not like in general.
Ah! Rereading it, I see what you mean. Umm. I could argue it either way, which gives you 75% of the votes, so done.
  • In March 1338 Portsmouth was captured and razed Add England next to Portsmouth because probably the reader haven't heard of the name yet.
I'm not sure about that. It is reasonably obvious from context and it is Wikilinked. Following this precedent I think that the article will get cluttered if I insert "England" or "France" after first mentions of Southampton, Hastings, Boulogne, Dieppe, Le Treport, Mers, Portland, Teignmouth, Plymouth and Brest, etc.
  • Five English ships carrying wool were captured off Walcheren in September Same as above but this time add the Netherlands here.
  • In October the major port of Southampton was captured and burnt down Same as above.
  • a deputation sought an audience with the French King in August Decapitalise "king" here.
Why, they sought an audience with a specific individual, King Philip. If you think that is unclear, I could add "Philip".
  • Yeah but isn't it if you add the demonym of a country then the title should be capitalised?
Sorry CPA, I'm not following you there. Could you explain a bit further?
  • Okay this is harder than I thought (with explaining). I thought if you use the demonym of a country before the title then wouldn't be decapitalised? I'll give you an example to make my broken English a little bit clear: "The eventual ransoming of the Scottish king resulted" "King" is here decapitalised but from the other hand you this example "However, the French King had stripped the area of fodder" when the "king" is capitalised. so which one should be used because I'm now confused (the quotes are from two separate articles you promoted to FA)? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is evil of you, to use my own inconsistencies against me! ;-) If I am referring to a specific king, then it should be capitalised. So "The eventual ransoming of the Scottish king resulted" is incorrect. You got me.
Eg "the ransom of a Scottish king", could be any king; "the ransom of the Scottish King", refers to a single, specific king. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Nah it's not your (entirely) fault though. In the FAC it was told to you (by someone I'm not gonna say he's name): "remind me why Scottish King is capitalised?". Ha, you're talking with Mr Evil. Oh right that's one of the things I have never told the people here. I'd love to tease people on the evil way because why not? So this probably won't be the last time I made tease you. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Oh yes - that was the second comment on my first ever FAC! I like to think that I would be a bit more assertive now. So, Mr Evil, anything else? Or do you feel able to either support or oppose? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link the Mediterranean.
Done
  • Pipe both France to the Kingdom of France and England to the Kingdom of England.
Both done.
  • which went on to besiege Tournai, a city in Flanders This sentence is odd. As a Belgian, I know that Tournai isn't in modern-day Flanders. Of course I know this about the county but the link goes to modern-day Flanders which doesn't make sense, why should it be linked if the city is in modern-day Wallonia while the link goes to modern-day Flanders?
My bad. Well spotted. Again. It shouldn't be linked at all. Sorry. Flanders is linked to to County of Flanders at first mention.
  • English Channel is overlinked.
D'oh! Fixed.
  • the Isle of Wight, Portland, Teignmouth, Plymouth and the Channel Islands. The English retaliated in September by raiding Brest First add Isle before Portland because there are more than one Portlands in the world. Second, explain that Teignmouth, Plymouth and Brest are in England and France.
I think that we have a difference of opinion on this. I have not seen this done in other articles. It's not something you have been picking me up on in your previous reviews of my nominations. Is there a new policy? If you are sure that this needs doing, then I would like to ping in the rest of the reviewers to see if we can reach consensus.
  • As far as I know, no. Not really, you see because I'm not a native English speaker I have the problem to make everything clearer even though it's already clear enough to most English speakers by adding the country. Another problem is I know there aren't a lot of people who know where those places are I mean if I ask someone where Tournai lie they probably say "in France" because it sounds French even it's not in the country itself. Another example is British cities or towns, everyone knows how a British one is written (in something they're mostly unfamiliar with. An example would you know that the town of Manorhamilton isn't in the UK but in Ireland even though it sounds like it is from the UK (maybe Scotland or North Ireland?). I just now got now the idea of we should be more clear than normal. What I always do is (I'm probably the only one) add the country where the place is in and places after that don't need the country because the reader (in my mind at least) knows we're still in that country until we suddenly go for an example to a place in France then we need to add France after that. And if we go back to the UK then the UK should be added again. This is the same idea I have with years and months, we shouldn't repeat them unnecessary when we know we're still in the same year or month except at the beginning of a paragraph. Of course, I'm not a native English speaker (I barely know the grammatical rules in English) and maybe this is allowed in English it's not a suggestion, recommendation or a grammatical rule. I think this is a writing style. If you disagree with me then it's fine I don't see why it shouldn't be the way it now is.
OK. You make, IMO, a good general point there, even if I am reluctant to pick up every example, as you suggest. Sometimes it is, IMO, clear from context; sometimes, again IMO, it doesn't matter too much if it isn't immediately clear to a reader; but I take your point and have added some further geographical pointers. I note that the article already said which countries Tournai, Sluys, Dieppe, Le Treport and Mers were; and I think that in "English coastal communities rejoiced in the victory and in the relief from French raids they supposed it brought. They were mistaken; later in the year the French raided the Isle of Wight, Portland, Teignmouth, Plymouth and the Channel Islands. The English retaliated in September by raiding Brest, capturing many ships ... " it is clear which location was whose.
  • By English common law, the king was required to compensate the owners of ships impressed into service, but in practice he paid little and late Add a comma after practice and capitalise "king".
See above re capitalisation. I don't see why there needs to be a comma. Grammatically, one could put one there, if there was also a comma after "but". This will read a little oddly to me, but I will do it if you want.
Capitalisation done. See above.

Part two

  • Link Great Council.
Oh, good spot. Done.
  • ach stretching across the 3-mile wide (5 km) estuary of the Zwin You forgot a hyphen between "mile" and "wide".
Drat. Fixed.
  • The traditional view is that the attack took place at 3:00 pm The two noughts are unnecessary here.
My reading of MOS:TIME is that either of 3:00 pm or 3 pm is permitted, but as I don't much care myself, ":00" removed.
  • had an effective range of 300 yards (270 metres) compared with 200 yards (180 metres) for the crossbows Maybe it's me but the metres here are really odd to look at. I just would use an "m" here, same with the km bellow this.
IMO there are some old fogies used to imperial measurements to whom "m" will not be (at all) clear. I prefer to leave measurements in full. (If 'twere the other way then then the metric measurements would be in full.
  • Hm, sounds legit but this is already archaic.
  • "16,000–20,000 190 ships lost, of which 166 captured" If I'm right 166 ships were captured right? I also reckon the 166 captured should be in a note 'cause it looks a little bit better.
Yes. I don't think that it looks that untidy, And I have always thought that I was a bit fussy about infoboxes.
  • "we have only a patchwork of interesting anecdotes to lead us to any conclusions." [27] Remove the unnecessary space.
Done.
  • the English successfully raided the French Channel port of Boulogne Do we miss here something?
No. But if I delete "French" are you happier?
  • Still looks a little bit odd to me, especially the "Channel" part which looks like it is in the wrong spot here.
I'm struggling a bit to see what you are unhappy with, but I have changed it to "In January 1340 the English successfully raided the port of Boulogne, where the majority of the French galley fleet was drawn up". Is that less odd? This loses the port being on the Channel, but arguably most readers won't much care. And I think that as it is clear that the English are doing the raiding and that French ships were harboured there a reader would understand that Boulagne was a French port.
  • During the winter and spring of 1340 the French ports of Dieppe Try to avoid using seasons here.
We've had this before. When used in the sense of military campaigns they are actually preferable to the months. If I gave the months, it is possible that some people would not understand that I was referring to the bad weather period when military operations were hampered and regular campaigning did not take place.
  • Just was aware of the countries who have jungles don't use seasons like we have.
I imagine that even jungle-dwelling Wikipedia consulters are aware of the concept of winter.
  • Link Genoese.
Genoa is already linked at first mention. There is not a separate link for Genoese.
  • In 1341 French, Castilian and Portuguese squadrons successfully Link both and pipe Castilian and Portuguese here.
Done.
  • Hundred Years' War is Jean Froissart and his Chronicles contain information What's the Chronicles here? Books, a couple of series of books or documents?
A chronicle, believe it or not! See Froissart's Chronicles.
  • So a series of books.
To simplify just a little, yes.
  • accompanying Edward, and were on their way to join his queen, Philippa of Hainault --> "accompanying Edward, and were on their way to join his Queen, Philippa of Hainault"?
Done.
  • Why does ref 29 have no page number?
Because I am referring to the entire article ("Kelly DeVries provides an overview of the main contemporary accounts and a summary of their modern interpretations in "God, Leadership, Flemings and Archery: Contemporary Perspectives of Victory and Defeat at the Battle of Sluys, 1340".") the page numbers of which are given in its entry in "References".
Hi CPA-5. You are fantastic. All your points addressed above, some with queries or rebuttals. (Out of interest, how far would you need to travel to stand on the (now) dry land where the battle took place?) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are. And almost British in the way you depreciate it. All settled I think, bar my confusion over French King/French king, see above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Sorted the dispute. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your eyes are as good as ever. Your further points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5. And in turn counter replied. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2020 (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/Battle_of_Sluys/archive1&oldid=943451952"