Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Blanchetaque

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Blanchetaque

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Battle of Blanchetaque (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A battle from the Hundred Years' War. The English army was trapped by the French in an area stripped of food. At Blanchtaque the English escaped by fighting their way across a tidal ford of the River Somme, against a French blocking force. Two days later the English fought and heavily defeated the main French army at the Battle of Crecy. I hope that this is ready for ACR, and I would be grateful for any and all suggestions. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Chetsford

edit

This is a very good article. I only had one suggestion, as follows:

  • "which was to last one hundred and sixteen years" - Per MOS:SPELL09, numbers greater than nine which require more than two words to express should be written as figures.
Ah ha. Correct. Well spotted. Corrected.

A few items which don't, I believe, require any action:

  • "it is claimed by a contemporary chronicler" - the name of said chronicler would be nice but my assumption is it's been omitted since the source doesn't name them so no big deal
I double checked - as you assumed, not named.
  • The lead seems very long, however, per MOS:LEADLENGTH is compliant so that's fine.
No, it was too long. I have trimmed it a little.
  • I find no DAB or ALT image issues.
  • All sources are reputable. One source is a PHD thesis which appears to have resulted in the actual awarding of a PHD (at least according to the author's biography on the Royal Historical Society website) so is fine per WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
Fowler went on to become a professor of Medieval history at a leading university and turned his thesis into a book - which I have. But he cut the thesis back to do this, so I usually use the thesis.

That's all. Chetsford (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chetsford, thanks for looking at this. I am glad that you liked it. Your suggestion implemented, plus one of your optionals - thanks for those - and a couple of others commented on. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

  • In the lead and infobox, I suggest "1346 chevauchée of Edward III" to avoid the "of" then "of"
Good thinking. Done.
  • also in the lead, but also the body, do we have any idea of the size of the English force? It seems odd to say how big the French force was but not the English.
Strictly no. But there is a lot of information on its size at Crecy two days later, so in practice, yes. But only a small part of this, was deployed at Blanchetaque, possibly a very small part. So I deliberately left out the total size of the army, as I left out the total size of the main French army, as it seemed more likely to mislead than inform. I am open to a contrary opinion.
If you don't have figures for both, I would leave figures out of the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • some explanation of the basis on which Edward claimed to be King of France is needed to provide context, as it seems an ambit claim
That would take at least a long sentence, and as it is tangential to the article I have removed the reference to the claim. If you are interested, see the first part of Hundred Years' War (1337–1360)#Background
  • link Flanders
Done.
  • link Arras
Done.
  • link Normandy
Done.
  • should South western France be South-western France as it is a compound adjective? Also north west Normandy later.
Not in my opinion. I offer in support South Western Railway; South Western School District; South Western Highway; South Western Railway zone. These are each from a different continent - to establish common usage, including one from the US. But hyphens are famously not my strong point, so if I have the wrong end of the stick, please say so and I will change them.
I would have thought they were all proper nouns, not compound adjectives, but will leave it to the grammar Nazis at FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having put five articles on south western France through FAC recently, it has cropped up.
  • "marched on Gascony" needs a full stop
Oops. Corrected.
  • "the deterioration of the English position in Flanders" is unexplained
Many, many things in this article are unexplained. Do you feel that a reader will be well served by a two sentence digression on the internal politics of Flanders that summer? Easily done, but I am not sure that it improves the article.
It currently begs the question, so if it is necessary to include a mention of it, it should be explained. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That section removed.
  • comma after "Brittany and Gascony"
Done.
  • comma after "naval technology of the time"
Done.
  • in the map of the chevauchée, Carentan is misspelt
I have contacted the editor who requested the map, whom I am collaborating with on other articles, and asked them to request a correction from the map creator.
  • link Caen
Done.
  • suggest "intractable siege of Aiguillon in the south west."
Done.
  • to avoid repetition, I suggest "an ill-organised and poorly-equipped army"
Done.
  • "Philip offered peace and a marriage alliance." is a bit abrupt, was there any response from Edward?
It was. It came from nowhere. Edward ignored it, and it wasn't repeated. It is usually interpreted as Philip panicking and throwing out wild ideas. (As with his "grand old Duke of York act" with his army from Rouen.) And/or that he hoped to buy time to gather his forces with pointless negotiations. The sources tend to describe what happened while being, understandably, vague about ascribing motives. A pair of cardinals from the pope were pressing Philip to avoid the shedding of Christian blood, but were reportedly "pessimistic". As this was 18 days before the battle, it didn't seem worthy of more detail. (Which will be in the forthcoming Chevauchée of Edward III (1346).)
Then I suggest "Philip suddenly offered peace and a marriage alliance, which Edward ignored." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. Slightly differently to your suggestion. "Philip, under pressure from representatives of the Pope, sent envoys offering peace backed by a marriage alliance; Edward replied that he was not prepared to lose marching time to futile discussion and dismissed them."
  • tweak the convert template at "20 miles (32 km)-wide" to adj=on to make it 20-mile and drop the hyphen in front of wide
Done.
  • is it swath or swathe in British English?
Either is acceptable, according to both Wikidictionary and my trusty (paper) Oxford shorter.
  • put fn 35 outside the punctuation
WP:PAIC: "Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis."
So the material from "...that just four miles away" to "toward the ford." is all covered by fn 36? You might just be better off combining the two citations at the end for presentation reasons. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems less clear to me, but you are more experienced, so done.
  • link men-at-arms
Done.
  • "the heads of the ranks in front of them" is a surprise, as there is no mention of foot soldiers being in front of the longbowmen. Do you mean other longbowmen?
Yes.
Then I suggest "the longbowmen could fire in ranks" and drop the "over the heads..." for clarity
Well, I am not sure that your suggestion would be any clearer for a non-technical reader, so I have tried a different wording : "the longbowmen had the advantages that those to the rear were have been able to fire over the heads of those in front of them ...". How's that?
  • link bridgehead
Done.
  • same convert template tweak for "12 miles"
Done.
  • The Fowler thesis is a bit old, but given the specialisation and his later career, I'm sure it is ok. The rest of the sources look reliable and of high quality.
Fowler - he turned the thesis into a book, which I have, but this is essentially a slimmed down, more wider-public-friendly version of the thesis with much of the technical detail stripped out, so I prefer to work from the "original" as it were.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67, once again thanks. I always feel better when your experienced eye has been run over one of my nominations. Your comments addressed above, some with queries or counter-comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few additional comments and a query. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Thanks for revisiting. All done. In a couple of cases slightly differently to your suggestions. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Supporting. Nice work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

Another battle between France and England let me see how I can help you mate.

  • In the infobox "Hundred Years War" --> Hundred Years' War typo.
Fixed.
  • Philip VI of France (r. 1328–1350) and Edward III of England No reigns of Edward III?
Fixed.
  • It anchored off Sluys in Flanders until 22 July unlink Flanders because there is already one previously.
Done.
  • It included at least one Norman baron who was unhappy Do we know who he was?
Only one of them.
  • devastating the country for up to 5 miles (8.0 km) inland Little odd to see the 0.
True. Removed.
  • 20 miles (32 km) from Paris, having left a 20-mile (32 km) wide Both "(32 km)" are not necessary because there is already one previously.
Removed.
  • that just four miles away, near the village of Saigneville No metric units?
Oops. Added.
  • fleeing for Abbeville, 6 miles (9.7 km) away Remove "(9.7 km)" Same as the "32 km" comment.
Done.
  • a 12-mile (19 km) diversion. Same as above.
Done.
  • File:Battle_of_Blanchetaque.jpg Shouldn't it be "14th-century depictation of the Battle of Blanchetaque" instead of "14th century depictation of the Battle of Blanchetaque"?
It should, it should.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks yet again CPA-5. If we ever meet in RL I will owe you an interesting number of beers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Gog you are once again welcome. Sadly I don't like alcoholic dranks, same with coffee. I'm a water and thee person. so let say in an alternative world I'd appreciate your number of beers and kind words. Anyway for me it looks a straight A-class so here is my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Constantine

edit

I will review as I go through the article.

  • largest fleet ever assembled by the English Any idea how big that was?
Strangely, only this week I wrote the size into another article, but forgot to go back to this and others - now done. (A new - to me - source footnoted the size, referencing a source I already use in this. *rolly-eyes* )
  • given the naval technology of the time Could you elaborate? I know that medieval fleets were not really able to conduct naval blockades or remain on station offshore for any length of time, but the average reader won't.
Good point. Reworded.
  • was estimated to be between 12,000 and 15,000 strong Estimated at the time by the French or somebody else, or estimated by modern scholars?
Oh, I was so sloppy! Thank you. Reworded and cited.
  • Some info on the author and date of the painting should be added in the infobox.
Took it a bit of searching, but it's by an anonymous illustrator from guess where? Done.
Hah, I meant the infobox painting, but that is good as well. Did the infobox painting myself ;).

That's it. It is a well-written and obviously well-researched article, as one has come to expect from its author. Well done. Constantine ✍ 10:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review Constantine, and for the kind words. I do feel that I am getting there. It seems a long time since you were gently telling me off for using sources which you didn't feel were up to scratch. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome, it is a pleasure to read your articles. My points having been addressed, I am happy to support now. Constantine ✍ 12:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • With the first map, would be helpful to indicate in the caption what the symbols mean
  • Good thought. Phew! That took well over an hour of experimenting. What do you think?
  • Fixed.
Hi Nikkimaria. Many thanks for looking at this. Both concerns addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Blanchetaque&oldid=893149619"