Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jacques Le Gris/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 not promoted 16:20, 5 November 2007.

Jacques Le Gris

edit

An article I have been working on for a while now. It has had a brief Military History Wikiproject A-class review and has passed for GA during which the reviewer suggested that the article was probably an FA candidate. The article does rely rather heavily (although by no means exclusively) on one source. However, as touched on in the Legacy section, Eric Jager's book is the only extensive and reliable source on this subject in English and I have no access to French sources even if I could read them. If this proves too great an obstacle for FA then so be it. Any comments will be much appreciated. Jackyd101 23:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments as I come across themSupport. Prose stuff mainly, I should think:
  • Early life; In 1370 his long service was awarded - should that be rewarded?
It should indeed. Changed.
  • During his career he became firm friends with another squire in the Count's service named Jean de Carrouges. - I'd think about rewording slightly to friends with Jean de Carrouges, another squire in the Count's service. (The Count's service wasn't called Jean de...!)
Quite correct. Changed.
  • 2nd para - the friendship between the two men became strained. This is only a suggestion, but since you've just mentioned the two barons, this reference to "two men" isn't as clear as it may be. It's perfectly understandable, of course, but could it be better?
Substituted "squires" for "men".
  • Who lent the 3,000 livres to whom?
Clarified.
  • While making a small copyedit to remove a stray apostrophe, I noticed (or at least, Firefox's inbuilt spell checker spotted) an instance of AmE. The use of neighbour in the lead suggests BrE use, and I seem to remember from the Ostend Raid article, that's your usual choice. Are there more? Do you want me to go through looking for them? I fixed that one, and am perfectly happy to seek and destroy any others. Actually, I've already fixed the two I could see; don't think there are any more. Carre 14:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Legal difficulties, I think subject to should be subjected to - past tense of the verb, rather than the adjectival sense (see [1])
  • Quite a few instances of "the <something> of <someone>", rather than "<someone>'s <something>". Some of them can't, I think, be fixed without clumsy language, but some can.
In the process of changing, will finish soon. Done I think, if I haven't done enough then please let me know.
  • Looks ok to me now - I think the remainder are either those that would need clumsy language to amend, or the accepted phrase "the court of..."
  • "fifty miles" or "50 miles"?
50.
  • Was it really the Latin misericordia, rather than misericorde? No idea, just asking. :)
The source material uses misericordia, so I'll stick with that for now. If these is a contradictory source then by all means bring it to my attention.
  • OK - I don't know of any sources, just thought it odd and worth asking the question.

Hmm - that's it; I did tweak a few bits and bobs of MOS issues along the way, but nothing much. A testament to a great tale that I found myself engrossed in reading it, and not looking for problems! And a nice little dig at Britannica at the end too ;) Carre 14:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your comments, I have responded above. Your input is most appreciated and please let me know if there is anything else you think needs to be done to the article. Regards--Jackyd101 17:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely job; changed to support. Carre 15:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've given this a bit of a copy edit, mostly to work in feudal references, and remove a bit of duplication. If you think, I've broken it revert what you will. I'd like to mulll this over for a bit as I think something is missing and I can't decide what :) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 10:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your edits,I changed a couple of typos (the source material refers to Carrouges with simply his surname and not "de Carrouges" so I think that is probably the best expression to use). In general I think your edits have enhanced the article, the only problem I have is that you removed a comment about his physical strength. I think this important, as all the source material emphasises that Le Gris was an exceptionally large and powerful man and that this threatening and imposing physique was an important asset in his military and political career.--Jackyd101 13:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (that's very tolerant of you). I think you're right; that the "de" means "of" rather than being a particule. Things went a bit astray this morning as my dog was being very persistent about going out and kept nudging me. I tried to restore it all but forgot to work the bit about physical strength back in. I'll look at it again later (I've got some material on this, but only in French). --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is going to seem very harsh, but I don't believe in many of the close-focus details given in this article. In my opinion, it gives more credence to the primary sources than they deserve. I have no doubt that the article is a faithful summary of Jager's book; but Jager is not a historian. To me, this article does not read like medieval history. Passages such as the following raise one's eyebrow:

As his horse faltered and collapsed, Le Gris was thrown off and lost his axe. Undaunted, he rose and drew his longsword, turning to meet Carrouges who was already advancing on him, sword also drawn. Again the combatants traded blows, their weapons the only sounds heard in the silent battleground.

What Jager is doing is retelling a semi-legendary event, as enhanced by the chroniclers. The article admits that "in the centuries since Le Gris' death the case has become an important cultural legend in France". My experience of Froissart, for what it is worth, is that he is not to be relied upon too much. His account of the death of John of Bohemia, for example, in which the blind king rides into battle and dies valiantly, is hardly credible. Froissart was bewitched by chivalric fantasy; that bias colours what he wrote.

In my opinion, this article would be better framed as a critical analysis of the sources for the legend. Perhaps with a slightly different title. I recommend a look at Joan of Arc for an objective article on similarly fantasized material.qp10qp 14:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion and I will look at the issues you raise, but I will continue this nomination as I do believe the approach to the article is sound. Jager is not basing his account on Froissart (which Jager acknowledges would be an absurd basis for a historical study) but on wide range of sources, including but not limited to the notes of Le Gris' lawyer Jean Le Coq, the studies of French jurists and the records of the Parlement of Paris. As such this is far more than simply a "semi-legendary event". Where I have used the chronicles as sources it is in an effort to add colour to the references and they have only been used where Jager agrees with them. Regards--Jackyd101 17:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, just to note, the passage you quoted above is not from Jager (as that would be plagarism and a copyright violation), but written by me based on Jager's account. The "dramatic" nature of the prose has been commented on before, but I maintain this is an effort to achieve "Brilliant Prose" as required in the FA criteria and there is nothing there which cannot be backed up by the source material.--Jackyd101 17:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realised you had not copied the passage (and there are many like it) and did not suggest that. However, I do not trust a style of writing medieval history that gives close-focus details that cannot be known and which, to my eyes at least, reads like a novelisation. You write these vivid passages with no framing devices to indicate where the details are derived from. It is the vivid storytelling that betrays much of this narrative as a semi-legendary event, particularly the duel itself, which is like something from Lancelot and Guinevere.
You mention the court records etc. I think these should be addressed directly through the work of historians rather than through Jager, who is not the best source for those aspects. A purely objective and sober account of this case would be fascinating.qp10qp 17:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although Jager is not a professional historian, he is an academic with expertise in the middle ages and I don't think that his work should be dismissed lightly. There are also problems associated with there being few 2nd hand sources on this man's life and with difficulties concerning OR, which would arise should the primary sources (which I have no access to) be used directly. I don't think the purely sober account you mention has been published, certainly not in English. --Jackyd101 23:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've been looking at the Joan of Arc article and was wondering if you meant Alternative historical interpretations of Joan of Arc instead of the main Joan of Arc page? The difference between these figures is that Joan is far more famous than Jean and consequently there are far wider interpretations of the former. In addition, as stated above, almost all sources apart from Jager are in French (and therefore beyond my reach) and there is little disagreement between those considered reliable.--Jackyd101 17:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't say anything else here. But I've added something to the article's talk page.qp10qp 18:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I take your point, the problem still is essentially a lack of sources on this event with which to compare. Some of the details for the combat come from (according to the endnotes of Jager's book) a French legal study in 1976. Where that study got its details from is unclear. In breaking these sources down (without access to many of them) I think I'm getting dangerously close to OR. --Jackyd101 23:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have made an attempt to change the tone of the combat paragraph with a simple passage. Let me know if it improves things. I have been thinking on this problem for several days and I think that the most significant problem is the reliability of the sources used in the section on the combat. The "rape" by contrast seems well sourced. I have introduced a couple of sentances explaining that the combat is drawn largely from the chronicles. I am still considering other options and would appreciate further advice, but this is an effort to address the problem in a simple manner whilst I continue to think about it.--Jackyd101 23:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

Oppose I share many of the same concerns that Qp10qp does and perhaps even the nominator himself/herself. It worries me that this page rests largely on three sources: Jager's popular history and two primary sources. I am also concerned about the writing style, which I believes derives from Jager.

  • Jager is not a historian - his academic books are in the field of English literature and as someone trained in that field, I can tell you they are very different. I checked for reviews of The Last Duel in academic journals because sometimes good popular books are reviewed there, but I didn't find any (I did find reviews of Jager's books on medieval literature). Nor has The New York Times or any other large newspaper employed someone to review the book yet. On what basis should we be willing to accept this book as the sole secondary source for the page? It is not written by a medieval historian, it is not an academic book, and it is has no solid reviews supporting it.
  • I am also concerned that we are only presenting one scholar's view of this event. Surely other scholars have written about this, even if they have not written entire books on it? There must be articles and references in other books. Does Jager's book have a bibliography? The research for this article seems superficial to me. It does not appear to me that the editor(s) took the time to find out what the scholarly consensus on this event is.
  • An Account of the Duel between Jean de Carrouges and Jacques le Gris in the Chronicle of the Monk of St. Denis - What is this source exactly? Is it being used as a secondary or primary source? If it is a primary source, the information from it should be announced to readers that way: "according to medieval sources..." Its use is not as clear as it should be. Also, it would be better to rely on scholars' analysis of these sources, not our own, as we are not the experts.
  • Froissairt's Tales appears to be a medieval source, but the article does not tell the reader until much later. The article bases the entire story of the rape upon it - I find this very problematic. Either use secondary sources or make it very clear to the reader primary material is being summarized. The rape sequence currently looks like a presentation of your version of the rape from the two primary materials - that could be considered WP:OR.
  • At the marshal's signal, silence descended over the field and both knights spurred their horses and charged, their lances each striking the other's shield but not causing significant damage. Wheeling, both again struck but failed to penetrate, scoring glancing blows on their helmets but remaining horsed. For a third time they turned and charged and again they both struck. This time however the lances shattered, sending slivers of wood cartwheeling across the arena and nearly unseating both men.[22] Regaining balance, the knights closed on one another with battle axes drawn, trading furious two-handed blows. As the engagement progressed, Le Gris' superior strength began to tell and Carrouges was driven back until with a mighty swing, Le Gris' axe severed the spine of Carrouges' horse. The dying beast tumbled to the ground, Carrouges leaping clear and meeting Le Gris' charge with a side-step, allowing him to thrust his own axe's pike deep into the stomach of Le Gris' steed. - This is novelistic writing - this is not encyclopedic writing. I remain skeptical that we have sources to back up this level of detail.

I have no doubt that a thoroughly-researched article with toned-down writing on this subject would be just as fascinating and I look forward to reading it in the future. Awadewit | talk 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your comments, perhaps you should also have a look at the article's talk page where several of these issues have been discussed. Fundamentally, the problem with this article is that Jager IS the only secondary source written in English which provides any more analysis than a brief paragraph length overview. There are more detailed sources in French, primarily legal studies, but I have no access to them. Jager discusses these sources and their conflicting opinions, but obviously their contents are unknown. Thus there is no consensus to represent other than that already shown in the article. As for the chronicles, I added them in to provide some colour to the references and only used them where Jager backs them up (they do differ quite a bit). However, I have since discovered thanks to input from other reviewers that Jager's own sourcing is rather poor. The section on the combat you quote above is possibly taken almost exclusively from the chronicles and thus is not a reliable source (the section on the rape actually appears to be taken from court records and lawyer's notes in the French National Archive). However with such a vague referencing system as Jager employs, it is difficult to see where he has used reliable sources and where he hasn't. In the absence of any corroborating evidence, this article is forced to rely too heavily on Jager and as a result has accuracy and reliability issues which simply cannot be addressed at the present time. I expect this nomination to be failed in the near future. Thankyou again for your comments, --Jackyd101 11:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so honest. It is good to know that you are putting the integrity of the project first. Perhaps this topic is more suitable for GA? I myself have written some articles that are based on the kind of scrounging that it looks like you would have to do for this topic - a paragraph here and an article there. I have left them at the GA-level because their level of comprehensiveness is so shaky that to bring them here would not enhance the FA process. We simply have to wait for more scholarship to be published (see The Guardian of Education and Priestley Riots, for example). Perhaps this is the time for you to start learning French, eh? Awadewit | talk 03:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jacques_Le_Gris/archive1&oldid=1138464328"