Talk:Battle of Bouvines/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 04:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links OK, no DABs
Bataille de Bouvines gagnee par Philippe Auguste.jpg needs a PD-Art tag, as do Bataille de Bouvines.jpg and Prisonniers Bouvines.jpg

Done.

Do we really need all these commanders and leaders in the infobox? Reduce them to the main leaders of each battle. If they're not important enough to mention in the order of battle, then they shouldn't be in the infobox

The long lists of participants and leaders were added by another editor after I nominated this. As they had clearly put a lot of work in, and as I am not too conversant with the rules on infoboxes I left it.

The key thing is that an infobox is supposed to summarize the basics of an article and some editors believe that they're generally redundant to the lede. My take is that they should convey the gist of the subject being covered, and not include every detail because I've seen complaints that ship infoboxes are often very long as people try to cram as much detail as possible into them. So, in summary, try to keep them as short as you can without neglecting important details. Of course, every editor is going to make that assessment differently, but that's why we have talk pages.

Take a look at some of the other GA-quality medieval battle infoboxes and see how deep they go for their list of participants. I'd be surprised if most of them listed all of the various noble realms involved.

Cut back to more or less what they were when I nominated the article.

A query for clarity: you write "Reduce them to the main leaders of each battle", but also "If they're not important enough to mention in the order of battle, then they shouldn't be in the infobox" Everyone in the infobox is in the OoB. Should I "Reduce them to the main leaders of each battle" anyway?

Upon further reflection, I'd limit them to just one commander of each battle.

Done.

Also, should I cut the number of Belligerents down to just those mentuioned in the article?

Not necessarily, see above

A little too much detail in the third para of the lead

Slimmed. Enough?

link Aire-sur-la-Lys, Saint-Omer

Done.

Flemish, followed by a further 250 knights. They carried out a series of continuous charges against the Flems I don't think that I've ever seen Flemish used as a nouns, only as an adjective. And I know that I've never seen "Flems" howzabout Flemings and/or Flemish troops or somesuch?

Done. And elsewhere

Count of Beaumont and Mathieu of Montmorency and Adam II Viscount of Melun Too many "and"s, convert the first one into a comma

Done.

their hooked pikes I didn't think that pikes had hooks.

I could replace with "long handled/shafted halberds", or "bills" if we want to be English. But that would probably be more confusing and would mildly contradict the source, which is reputable and clear - see here - p.253. Note in the Wiki-articles the descriptions of how the hooks are used to unhorse cavalry.

Personally I have my own views as to what the weapon mix was, but that would be OR.

Fair enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalize allied

Ha. I was part way through de-capitalising it when I noticed that you has started editing, so I stopped to see which way you would jump. Done. Also Allies.

Put all the titles of your English-language sources in title case.

Done.

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sturmvogel 66, many thanks for taking this on. Medieval articles don't seem to be too popular. Your points above have been addressed, a couple with queries. I am ready for your next installment when you are. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: Comments re the infobox addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]