Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Treaty of Guînes/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) 9 July 2021 [1].

Treaty of Guînes

edit
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another in my occasional series of treaties and truces. 17 years after the outbreak of the Hundred Years' War a draft treaty to end it was signed. This was supposed to be finalised and ratified in front of the Pope six months later. But by then the French King had changed his mind, hostilities were renewed and the war lasted a further 101 years. There is limited information in the sources on this curiosity, but I believe that I have worked in what there is and that the article is substantial enough to be up to a FAC. Other opinions may be available, so have at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BasedMises

edit

I would like to preface this with the unmistakable fact that I am not very experienced in grading featured articles. I cannot comment on whether or not it is a FA, although I can assure you, it likely is. However, I would recommend some very minor changes:

Done.
  • Remove "that" from unnecessary areas
Several removed. IMO the eight remaining are all "necessary".
  • Occasionally it feels underlinked, but this is purely from a reader's perspective
Well, possibly I pay too much attention to MOS:OVERLINK. and at the margin it is a subjective decision. I have gone through the article and added several Wikilinks, although in several cases it seemed that I was stretching. See what you think.
Certainly seems better. It is likely the optimal amount of linkage.

BasedMisesMont Pelerin 17:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BasedMises, don't worry about inexperience too much - although thanks for flagging it up - we all have to start somewhere, and all constructive contributions are grist for the mill. Many thanks for these thoughts; I shall address them as soon as I can and ping you. Meanwhile, if anything else occurs to you, don't be shy. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BasedMises, your points above now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from SusunW

edit
  • Comment: A read through shows inconsistency of commas. I know that punctuation is different in BE and AE, so perhaps this is a situation of variance in style, but in any case, you should either use commas consistently after dates or not use them. Same for Oxford commas and introductory clauses, either use them or don't. My preference would be to use them in each of those situations, but that is preference and certainly not required.
Well spotted. It must have been me who did that, in a fit of sub-literacy, but I am struggling to believe it. Extraneous commas removed.
Methinks it was gremlins.

Lede

  • Link Guînes in the 1st sentence and not in the 2nd paragraph.
Done.
  • "… A truce was agreed" reads awkwardly to me. Can a truce agree to something? I would perhaps use brokered or negotiated, but maybe it’s a BE vs AE thing? (See also this wording in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.)
Truces aren't agreed in the US. How odd. Google finds a 100,000 instances of "A truce was agreed" - [2].
You are asking me how wars are settled? Me? Maybe truces are agreed, it just sounds weird to me. Terms are agreed upon, but the actual truce seems like it would just be accepted or rejected.
  • Why was Guînes an important town?
I have added "a strategically located strongpoint". Does that work?
yes
  • Link Innocent VI
Done.
  • This "Negotiations were reopened and a peace agreement whereby Edward abandoned his claim to the French throne in exchange for French territory was rapidly agreed and the draft formally signed on 6 April" reads awkwardly to me. Perhaps: "Negotiations, whereby Edward abandoned his claim to the French throne in exchange for French territory, were reopened and a peace agreement was rapidly drafted and signed on 6 April."
I prefer sentences where events are in chronological order. How about "Negotiations were reopened and the English emissaries suggested that Edward abandon his claim to the French throne in exchange for French territory. This was rapidly agreed and a draft treaty was formally signed on 6 April."?
fine
  • "…round of warfare may leave", might leave? Because may typically is iffy but probable, whereas might is used for hypothetical situations, but maybe it's a BE vs AE thing?
Changed to "might".

Background

  • "…declared they were forfeit" is confusing. What was forfeited? English title to lands, perhaps?
I have changed to "declared that these lands were forfeit". As it says "regarding the status of English-held lands in south-west France" in the previous sentence I hope that us clear(er).
yes
  • "This marked the start" seems very passive for beginning a war. Perhaps, "His action started (or sparked)"?
It was very passive. There were years of bad tempered negotiations both before and after what was only with hindsight recognisable as the outbreak of serious hostilities.
fine
  • I think the sentence "In 1340 the English king…" reads clearer as "In 1340, the English king Edward III, as the closest male relative of Philip's predecessor Charles IV, laid formal claim to the Kingdom of France in order to permit his allies who were also vassals of the French crown to lawfully wage war on it."
Done.
  • What other aims?
Cough. Good point. Specified.
Thanks
  • "It was to run for nine months…" what does this mean? The term of the truce was for nine months or it was successfully adhered to for nine months? (I think you mean term, as the following sentence says clashes continued, but 9 months seems an odd period to negotiate.)
I can't see what is wrong with the original, nearly all late-Medieval truces ran for specific periods, and this one was for nine months. But trusting you that something is awry I have changed to "It was agreed that it would expire nine months later". How is that?
fine
  • What is a freelancing soldier? It sounds like someone who goes out and wages war independently, i.e. terrorist. But I am guessing it is more like a mercenary?
OK. The etymology of free lance. See Lances fournies for what a "lance" was. (A small unit that accompanied a knight when he went into battle during the 14th and 15th centuries, a lance might have consisted of one or two squires, the knight himself and one to three foot soldiers or archers.) The knight would usually be bound by an oath of fealty to a feudal superior. If not, he, and his lance, would be described as "free". During war time they may sell their services and thus be considered "mercenaries", but not much more so than soldiers today who fight for pay. (Swift homage to Houseman's poem.) These free lances were loose cannons when there was little or no fighting going on. They would frequently strike off on their own on unauthorised looting sprees. This became known politely as "freelancing". When doing this they were the opposite of mercenaries. Possibly they could be equated to freebooters or pirates; or even more loosely to privateers. I have had this discussion before and am loath to describe them inaccurately. I could suppose go with something like "a band of English soldiers on an unauthorised expedition ..."?
You should word it how it makes sense from a standpoint of military history, of which I clearly do not have a grasp. Perhaps just linking to Lances fournies would allow the reader to ascertain the context.
Good idea. Linked.
  • Perhaps: "…desperate measures to raise money, set about raising an army, and resume the war"?
Instead I have expanded the last sentence to "Thus the opportunistic capture of Guînes resulted in the war resuming."
fine

Prelude

  • Difficult to approach the castle”? I am sure this is my misunderstanding of military operations but it seems really passive. Unless there were obstacles—men, moats, weapons in the way—what was stopping them from walking up to it? Do you mean take/storm the castle?
Just as you surmise. The source: "surrounded by moats or marsh on every side" ... "almost inaccessible by land".
Can we just clarify that in the text, i.e. "Difficult to approach the castle by land or some such?
Done.

Treaty

  • "…ex-archbishop of Canterbury among others", are you saying Islip had more titles or there were other negotiators? Perhaps, a semi-colon is needed after Canterbury?
That seems an unusual grammar, but I take your point. Done.
  • Verb tense seems awkward in "After several meetings". Either offset "reconvening on 19 May" with commas, or use "would reconvene".
Went with the latter.
  • Agreement was agreed seems redundant. Perhaps "Edward assented on 30 March to the principle of a peace agreement, abandoning his claim to the French throne in exchange for French territory."
Chronological order again. And your proposal loses the role of the negotiators. I think "of a peace agreement" is the problem and it adds nothing, so I have deleted it.
fine
  • Again perhaps a BE vs AE thing, but I would say "By it, England…"
Comma added, although it now reads oddly to me.
  • Same for "In the same ceremony, English…"
Ditto and ditto.
  • "…another round of warfare may leave him" see above may vs. might
Done.
  • "…1355 campaigning season"? Do we need campaigning? Sounds political, but obviously is used for military strategy.
We do, it is; but I have found a link! Does that help?
yes

I think that's it for me. Thanks for your work on the article. SusunW (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero

edit

Thoughts

  • Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War is a tertiary source. Why is it used instead of secondary sources?
Largely because there is no policy against it; WP:RSPRIMARY "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited." Pragmatically because secondary sources, being largely narrative, tend not to make simple statements like "The Hundred Years' War began in 1337 and ended in 1455", Encyclopedias do, and so are useful for supporting simple, uncontroversial facts. And secondary sources frequently aren't: so Rogers p. 291 (which is cited in the article in 25, 28 and 32) in his cites mentions Fowler, Perroy and another work by himself. I agree that this is not usual, but it is not that uncommon. And Wagner is a top historian himself. He cites the article "Guines, Treaty of" solely to Sumption, but there is more in his article than Sumption provides, otherwise, as you say, Wagner wouldn't be needed.
    • The publisher seems to be Greenwood Press and the front matter claims that it is out of Westport, CT in the US. The UK location is listed as London. Maybe this is a US vs UK edition?
No, it is me getting it wrong. Fixed.
  • Weirdly the ISBN brings up Faber and Faber and U. Penn. Press as the publisher of Sumption's history of the 100 years war. Is this a UK vs US issue as well?
I suspect that someone has run auto ed or a similar bot over the article. I have reinstated the ISBNs as they are on the works' title pages, but who knows when some good faith soul will "improve" them?
  • Dictionary of Battles and Sieges is also a tertiary source and seems to be from the same publisher as Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War but with a slightly different name/location pair
Dropped. Not really necessary.
  • JSTOR has some stuff beyond the books that you used that might be of interest

--In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 02:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Interesting. I don't have much to nitpick about, other than a sourcing issue:

  • "Brittainy"
Done.
  • suggest "The French responded on 8 May by cancelling the truce and announcing an arrière-ban in Normandy, a formal call to arms for all able-bodied males."
Done.
  • link ratification and treaty
Done.
  • There does seem to be heavy usage of a tertiary source (Wagner, 15 citations of 48, almost a third), which isn't ideal in an FA. English Medieval Diplomacy (1985) by George Peddy Cuttino seems to have some useful material, also have you checked the back catalogue of The Journal of Medieval Military History? I'd like to see secondary sources used for some of the material cited to Wagner.
15 from 48? I count 15 from 63. All for straight forward facts. Most secondary sources go for narrative flow and so miss some of the obvious facts. I can probably hunt down most of it elsewhere, and I'll look at Cuttino. Wagner now down to 8, and I can probably lose a couple more.
Wagner reduced to 6 cites. Note that he is a leading scholar of the conflict and that the content of each article is his original contribution. I don't see that the title alone makes it a tertiary source.

That's it. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker and thank you for the review. I have addressed all of your comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

I have much of this, and will do the necessary. Tomorrow, more horse, blackadder! ——Serial 22:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a cunning source sire. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FACs are of course open season, but it occurs to me that you may have been misled by my idiotically missing In actu (Guerillero)'s source review and briefly listing it as needing a source one? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley

edit

A top-notch article by our resident expert on the period. A few very minor comments:

  • Prelude
  • "found it difficult to approach the castle due to the marshy terrain" – "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to" in AmEng, but in BrEng it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
Changed to the safe "because of".
  • "the modern historian Jonathan Sumption described as" – but "Sumption describes" in the next para. The latter is the more usual form, I think.
Oh! I have become so sloppy without for around to correct me. Fixed.
  • Negotiations
  • an ex-keeper of the privy seal and an ex-archbishop of Canterbury ... John's Chancellor – I am well aware that if one attempts to be consistent in capitalising job titles one will assuredly go mad, but I don't see why the first two posts aren't capitalised but the third is.
Because the first two refer to generic positions, while the third refers to a specific person. Don't look at me like that, I didn't write MOS:JOBTITLES.
  • "Charles of Navarre ... murdered Charles of Spain in his bedroom" – not that it matters, but it isn't clear whose bedroom. Does the venue matter, in any case?
It was tricky. I have tweaked it and expanded it slightly. Murder, even of powerful figures, happened. The circumstances of this one demonstrate, I feel, how bad things had become in France. But it is background, so I don't want to allocate too much space to it.
  • Agreement
  • "England was to gain the whole of Aquitaine, Poitou, Maine, Anjou, Touraine and Limousin" – I'm far from expert on the period, but I wonder was it England that gained these lands or the king of England? I'm perfectly prepared to be slapped down on this.
As the King of England gained them as sovereign territory it seems a reasonable usage and follows the sources. England would have expanded to include them, on the same basis as it actually held Calais, which sent an MP to Parliament for two centuries! But I am not that concerned either way.

That's my meagre lot of gleanings. – Tim riley talk 18:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that Tim, I have missed your bringing some of the basic rules of English to my attention rather late in life. As a consequence, my standards have clearly been slipping. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my opinion, and as usual with Gog's articles a jolly good read. Tim riley talk 19:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

edit

Ian Rose, @FAC coordinators: As this now has three supports, two from non-MilHist editors, source and image reviews and has been open for 19 days could I have permission to nominate another one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do (now that I've finally removed your other nom from the board)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shooterwalker

edit

This one looks excellent overall. Going to throw in some constructive feedback for good measure.

  • I feel like "draft agreement" might not be the clearest way to explain that this was a treaty that was a precursor to the war ending, 100 years later. The first sentence isn't bad, though.
Hmm. Changed to "draft settlement", although I think that is less readily understandable.
  • Overall, there are some longer sentences that would be more readable if broken into two, if not shortened.
I have split one sentence, although I am not convinced it needed it. The three remaining sentences which I would consider "long" are lists, where IMO breaking up the sentences would do more harm than good; in two cases they are appropriately coloned and semi coloned to aid readability. How many words does a sentence need for you to consider it too long?
  • "The war had broken out in 1337 and had been aggravated in 1340 when the English king, Edward III, claimed the French throne." -> "The war had broken out in 1337 and was further aggravated in 1340 when the English king, Edward III, claimed the French throne." (using past perfect tense twice in a row sort of cancels out its usefulness)
I disagree, but done. (To say that something was "further" aggravated when you have not said that it had been 'initially' aggravated looks like poor English to me, but I am no expert.)
  • "With both sides exhausted, a truce was agreed, which despite being only fitfully observed was repeatedly renewed." -> "With both sides exhausted, they both agreed to a truce, which was repeatedly renewed despite several lapses." (active voice on who agreed to the truce is clearer, and trying to be clearer than "only fitfully observed")
If I had put that in the original, I virtually guarantee that someone would be picking up the use of "both" twice in five words. "despite several lapses" may be "clearer" than "only fitfully agreed", but it is also less accurate. Perhaps you could suggest an alternative which stays closer to the original sense?
  • "When English adventurers seized the important town of Guînes, a strategically located strongpoint, in 1352, full-scale fighting broke out again." -> "When English adventurers seized the strategically located town of Guînes in 1352, full-scale fighting broke out again." (important / strategically located are sort of redundant)
Good point. I got carried away. Done.
  • "In early 1354 a faction in favour of peace with England gained influence in the French king's council." -> "By early 1354, the French king's council saw more influential members advocating for peace." (passive voice is less clear)
I'm sorry, but I disagree. If wasn't already aware of what was meant, I would struggle to work out what your suggestion was trying to communicate. I have a rule to go with reviewers' suggestions even if I am not happy, unless I am really strongly opposed. I am aware that an oppose on 1a would see this archived, but I feel that I need to draw a line somewhere. Could we perhaps talk this one out?
  • "In 1360 the Treaty of Brétigny, which largely replicated the Treaty of Guînes, but was a little less generous towards the English, was agreed." -> "In 1360, both sides agreed to the Treaty of Brétigny, which largely replicated the Treaty of Guînes, but was a little less generous towards the English." (fewer commas) Done, but both versions have three commas, and your suggestion had two more words, so I am unsure what has been achieved.
  • "flared up" is fine by me, but perhaps some people might find it too colloquial. You could easily say "The war continued from 1369, and only ended in 1455..."
If it is fine by you then I would prefer to leave it. 27,000 Google hits on "war flared up" suggests that it is not that unusual a phrase. 6 mn examples of "flared up", see some of the variety of usages here.
  • The first sentence in "background" could be broken into two parts, for clarity and readability.
Done.
  • "in order to permit" -> ". This permitted" (less run-on sentences and more readability)
To my eye chopping one concept into two separate sentences reduces readability, but done.
  • "Both sides were financially exhausted and emissaries despatched by Pope Clement VI negotiated the Truce of Calais on 28 September bringing a temporary halt to the fighting" -> "With both sides strained financially, Pope Clement VI dispatched emissaries to negotiate the Truce of Calais on 28 September, bringing a temporary halt to the fighting." (improved flow)
It is also inaccurate. The emissaries were despatched to negotiate a truce, it was not known at the time if any such truce would be negotiated, much less what it would be called. If you feel it needs changing, perhaps 'With both sides exhausted financially, Pope Clement VI dispatched emissaries to negotiate a truce. On 28 September the Truce of Calais was agreed, bringing a temporary halt to the fighting.'?
  • "confirming them in possession" -> "confirming their possession"
Why? What is wrong with the original phrase. Perhaps "wrong" is not the best word, but the English "were" in possession, so your suggestion seems a tautology. The French confirmed/agreed/accepted that the English were in possession of large parts of France and so, in theory, for the duration of the truce, they would not be disturbed there. "confirmed in possession" seems to me a succinct and accurate way of communicating that.
  • "and the English" -> ". Still, the English" (full stop to improve readability and grammar)
There are three uses of "and the English" in the article. I assume you mean the one towards the end of Agreement. I don't understand why you suggest the use of "Still" so I have changed the original to "... the treaty sight unseen. The English party for the ceremony departed ..." although to my eye the breaking of one concept into seperate sentences reduces readability.
  • "fortified towers or bastions" -> just say one or the other. or to split the difference, use "fortified towers" as linked to bastions. (this sentence runs on, and this small change will help)
They are different things. If you wish them to be merged I could say "small fortified stongholds" or "small fortified positions"?
  • "they were successful in approaching Guînes undetected and launching a night attack on the French camp." -> "they successfully ambushed Guînes during the night." (less wordy / more readable)
How do you ambush a town? Even if you could, "ambush" implies the ambushee moving into the ambush, at which point the ambushers attack. This is not what happe
  • "Both parties were ill-prepared and ill-briefed; only two of the French delegation had been involved in formal negotiations with the English before." -> "Both parties were ill-prepared and ill-briefed, with only two of the French delegation having any negotiating experience with the English." (less wordy)
And flows better. Thank you. Done. I have added "previous" for clarity.
  • "they would adjourn to receive further instructions from their monarchs, would reconvene on 19 May and that until then hostilities would be suspended by a formal truce." -> "they would adjourn to receive further instructions from their monarchs, reconvene on 19 May, and suspend hostilities until then." (sentences that list actions like this are improved by grammatical parallelism -- same tense is a good start)
I have already broken this sentence, in line with your comment above "there are some longer sentences that would be more readable if broken into two". See if you feel that your comment still applies to the revised version.
  • "French central and local government collapsed." -> "French government collapsed, both locally and in the capital." (avoids splitting the subject, the French government)
I am not sure that I understand. Local government was a different thing, run by different people for different ends to central government. At times they were at war with each other!
  • "The principle whereby Edward abandoned his claim to the French throne in exchange for French territory was agreed; Edward gave his assent to this on 30 March." -> "There was an agreement in principle, where Edward would abandon his claim to the French throne in exchange for French territory. Edward assented to this on 30 March."
Why? This seems to me to lose the main point of the sentence.
  • "By it," could probably drop this for no loss in meaning
True. Done.
  • "The truce was to be immediately publicised, the treaty kept secret until 1 October" -> the way this is written, it feels like these two statements contradict each other. If it's just trying to communicate a timeline, this could probably be stated more simply.
In what way do they contradict each other? One thing - the truce - was to be publicised; a different thing - the treaty - was not. I am happy to entertain specific suggestions to improve comprehension, or to explain how I have missed the point.
  • "Avignon was put back" -> the words "put back" are unclear here. Do you mean "delayed", or maybe "rescheduled"?
How is "The date for formal ceremony in Avignon was suspended."?
  • "Planned negotiations in Avignon to finalise the details of the treaty did not take place in the absence of French ambassadors." -> "In Avignon, a planned meeting to finalize the treaty did not take place, due to the absence of the French ambassadors." (clearer flow)
I don't see how introducing a pair of commas (the word count is the same) and mentioning the meeting before you tell the reader what it is about improves the flow.
  • "taking to the field in" -> "fighting"
Done, although note that Edward III did not take part in any fighting.
  • "In 1360, the Treaty of Brétigny, which largely replicated the Treaty of Guînes,[35] but was a little less generous towards the English, brought a temporary halt to the fighting." -> "In 1360, the fighting was brought to a temporary halt by the Treaty of Brétigny, which largely replicated the Treaty of Guînes with less generous terms for the English." (makes this more clear. I know you're sort of working around the citations, but you could probably pack them both at the end of the sentence and it would be fine.)
Done. I have added "slightly".
  • Somewhere between the second last and last sentence the jump in time is a little jarring -- most intelligent readers will infer that the war continued, but might be worth adding or rephrasing just to make that clear.
Very good point. Clarified. See what you think.

This is a great read and I was genuinely informed and interested. Feel free to WP:IGNORE any suggestions if you feel they take things in the wrong direction.

In future reviews you may wish to consider this at the start , rather than end.

Overall, this article is close to FA, if not already there. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shooterwalker and thanks for the detailed read through and comments. Your points are all responded to above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is good work on the whole. Most of my suggestions were meant to be constructive and I don't mind some pushback where you explained what might be lost.
Thanks for that. I am always concerned that I might make reviewers grumpy when I push back.
  • "With both sides exhausted, a truce was agreed, which despite being only fitfully observed was repeatedly renewed." -> "With both sides exhausted, they agreed to a truce. Despite observing it inconsistently, the truce was repeatedly renewed." (second try. more the spirit of the suggestion than the exact letter.)
I am not seeing this as an improvement on the original.
  • I like your proposed alternative: "With both sides exhausted financially, Pope Clement VI dispatched emissaries to negotiate a truce. On 28 September the Truce of Calais was agreed, bringing a temporary halt to the fighting."
Done.
  • "small stongholds" would be a more succinct way of saying "towers and bastions".
I have gone with "small fortifications".
  • When you explained that the truce was to be publicised, but the treaty was not... I had to parse this out in my mind, but I see your point now. Perhaps there's a way to explain that the exact terms of the treaty remained a secret? I'm struggling to find an easy improvement but I leave it up to you.
Hmm. I have made more of a meal of it, which hopefully flags up the distinction for a reader more clearly.
  • I do like your suggestion: "The date for formal ceremony in Avignon was suspended."
Done.
The article was already well written and looks to be in even better shape now. I can support based on the prose, and I leave these last few suggestions to your discretion. My hope is that they improve the article, but none are so crucial to stop this article from being featured. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shooterwalker, thanks for the support and for the further suggestions. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

edit
  • ...English-held lands in south-west France... Consider mentioning or linking the Duchy of Aquitaine.
Smacks head. Somehow this gor lost in the copy edit and/or review process. Thank you. Start of background rewritten to include this.
  • ...historically-English territory in south-west France... Consider mentioning Aquitaine in place of this text. (I am not sure that Aquitaine could be described as a historically-English territory. Could we describe Croatia as a historically-Hungarian territory? I would say no, although the kings of Hungary were the kings of Croatia for more than 800 years.)
Rephrased.
  • Several members of the King's Council made fiery, warmongering speeches... Do we know why?
The sources don't say. Facts are difficult enough to nail down, motives more so. I could have a good guess, I imagine the sources could too, but it would be pure OR.
  • The resumption of hostilities caused fighting to flare up in Brittany... Brittany appears without introduction.

Consider mentioning/linking/referring to the War of the Breton Succession.

I think that it is unnecessary detail. I would rather replace "in Gascony and Brittany" with 'elsewhere in France' than go into more detail on a peripheral point which is not rementioned.
  • Consider introducing Geoffrey de Charny.
Done.
  • Geoffroi de Charny or Geoffrey of Charny?
"of" - changed.
No.
  • The war also went badly for the French on other fronts... Perhaps this should be mentioned in the "Prelude" section with some details.
Good point. Done.
  • Why is treaty linked?
Because Peacemaker67 requested that it be in an earlier review. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible that Innocent was acting at John's instigation. WP:WEASEL.
Rephrased.
  • The modern historian George Cuttino states that Innocent was acting at John's instigation. Is this relevant? Or why does he think that the Pope was acting at the French king's instigation?
IMO, yes. It is the closest we get to knowing why serious peace talks took place - as opposed to the frequent insincere discussions which led at best to ill-observed truces.
  • Who was the bishop of Norwich?
I assume that you have clicked on the link to find out and n=mean - can I state it in text. If so, done.
  • Are you sure that Simon Islip was ex-archbishop?
Good spot, my misreading of the source.
  • Link "Archbishop of Rouen".
Done.
  • Why is the term "sealed" linked?
Because readers may be a little vague as to what it means and appreciate a ready opportunity to find out.
  • Formal negotiations recommenced in early April and were rapidly concluded. Do we know the participants? All participants of the unsuccessful negotiations are listed some lines above.
I fudged it a little, as only the French delegates are known. I have now included what is known, although it looks a little lob sided.
  • Link the Pale of Calais.
Already linked at first mention.
When it is first mentioned it is hidden. Readers may be a little vague as to what it means and appreciate a ready opportunity to find out. :)
Very good. :-)) It is linked to "English enclave around Calais", I hardly consider that "hidden".
I think it should be explicitly mentioned when it is first linked. Our average non-British reader may not know that the "Pale" refers to a territory in this context. Borsoka (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Done.
  • Details of how much of the treaty was known to the French ruling elite and their debates regarding it are lacking... The cited source says that John II of France convoked an assembly, but he may have not informed those who were present about the details of the treaty.
This seems to me to be covered by Sumption's "It is not clear how much they were told or what they advised ... French policy [is] wrapped in embarrassed and conspiratorial silence".
  • By early September the French court had turned against the treaty. and The French court turned entirely against the treaty... Duplication?
oops. Thank you. Removed.
  • ...John was persuaded... By whom?
The word is not being used in that sense. Changed to "had decided".
  • Is the linking of campaigning season to season useful?
IMO very much so. It is not an area I would expect a casual reader to be conversant with, and hovering over the link will provide rapid elucidation.
Yes, if our causal reader is able to get through a lengthy article mainly about non-military seasons.
Oops. I messed up the anchor in the target. A reader is now taken direct to "Military campaigning seasons".
  • ...with both Edward and his son, Edward the Black Prince, taking to the field in separate campaigns in France. In which month/season?
I could of course give and source this detail, but why? It hardly seems germane. There is a large amount of information I could give about each campaign - entire books have been written about them - but it would all be peripheral to the Treaty of Guines.
  • The Hundred Years' War finally ended in 1455, 101 years after the Treaty of Guînes was signed. Is 1455 correct?
Yes. (Why do you query it?)
Both my memories and the article about the Hundred Years' War say that it ended with the fall of Bordeaux to the French.

If the end of the war is mentioned, perhaps its outcomes should also be mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the Wikipedia article carefully avoids giving an end date for the war. But going through more sources, you are correct - the consensus is for 1353 and the final fall of Bordeaux. Changed.
I am not sure that the details of events more than a century later could be claimed as staying "focused on the main topic", nor relevant to it.
I think it is quite relevant that the English lost Aquitaine at the end of the war (although the Treaty of Guines had confirmed their possession of the duchy). Borsoka (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Borsoka and thanks for your diligent scrutiny. I think that I have now addressed all of your concerns. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this interesting and well-researched article. I enjoyed reviewing it. Borsoka (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2021 (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/Treaty_of_Guînes/archive1&oldid=1032912813"