Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Lunalonge
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Battle of Lunalonge
[edit]... that after a force of Gascon cavalry had decisively defeated a French force they had to walk home because the surviving French had captured their horses?Source: Burne, A.H. (1991) [1955]. The Crecy War. London: Greenhill Books. ISBN 978-1853670817 p. 225.
- Reviewed: Iris Kadrić
Improved to Good Article status by Gog the Mild (talk). Self-nominated at 11:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC).
New enough, long enough, clearly within policy (as expected with any kind of article that's a GA), QPQ has been done. I can't access the source for the hook, as it's offline, but I'm willing to assume good faith with it. Hook's interesting. Should be good to go!--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Gog the Mild and SkyGazer 512 but I've had to pull this from a prep because the hook is not cited adequately in the article. All facts referenced in the hook must appear in the article and have a corresponding in-line citation. In this case, there is no mention or citation of a "decisive defeat". Additionally, while the French capturing the Gascon's horses is implied in the article, it is not directly stated as such. Once the text and cites are added, we will be able to re-promote this. Best, Mifter (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that after a force of Anglo-Gascon cavalry had defeated a French force they had to walk home because the surviving French had captured their horses?
@Mifter: No need to apologise. If I didn't reference adequately that is my fault. I have tweaked the hook slightly and provided at the bottom at least two sources for each element of it. I have thickened up the referencing in the article to match the detail given below. Hopefully this now does the trick.
@SkyGazer 512: Apologies to you too, but could you run your eyes over it again? Hopefully, as the only issue is the sourcing and as I have, I hope, covered this fairly thoroughly below, it shouldn't take you long. Thanks.
Sources referred to are:
- Bennett, Matthew (1999). "The Development of Battle Tactics in the Hundred Years War". In Curry, Anne; Hughes, Michael. Arms, Armies and Fortifications in the Hundred Years War. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer Ltd. pp. 69–82. ISBN 9780851157559.
- Burne, A.H. (1991) [1955]. The Crecy War. London: Greenhill Books. ISBN 978-1853670817 p. 225.
- Oman, Charles (1998). A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages: 1278-1485 A.D. London: Greenhill Books. ISBN 9781853673320 p. 155, 159.
- Sumption, Jonathon (1999). Trial by Fire. London: Faber & Faber. ISBN 978-0-571-13896-8 p. 50.
- Tout, T.F. (1905). "Some Neglected Fights Between Crecy and Poitiers". English Historical Review. 20: 726–30. doi:10.1093/ehr/xx.lxxx.726.
Solid RSs all.
Anglo-Gascon cavalry: Burne "the Allies, English and Gascons"; Tout "the English .. . the Gascons".
defeated: Burne "the English, though victorious"; Oman "the French ... defeats of .. . Lunalonge"; Tout "the night of their victory"; Bennett "Unfortunately for the French their forces were defeated in detail".
a French force: Burne ""the efforts of the French to seek out the weak points"; Sumption "lines of French cavalry".
walk home: Burne "fell back on their base"; Bennett "forcing the victors to retire on foot during the night to a nearby fortress"; Tout "hurrying home on foot".
captured their horses: Burne "the English ... without their horses"; Bennett "The French sent part of their mounted force against the dismounted English, while another body galloped around the English rear to capture their horses".
Gog the Mild (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: When approving this, I had thought I checked the hook thoroughly and closely, including the fact that it was an Anglo-Gascon victory, but I guess I didn't look quite strictly enough; my apologies. I'm pretty sure what caused Mifter to pull the hook is the fact that there is no place in the article which clearly states that the Anglo-Gascon won which is supported by a source. The infobox says "Anglo-Gascon victory," but without a reference, and although the Battle section implies that it was an Anglo-Gascon victory based on the more detailed info, it doesn't seem to explicitly state that; I'm guessing Mifter doesn't think the implying is good enough for DYK and that it must be explicitly stated. The horses part should be okay now, however, now that you've made this edit. Thanks, --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- @SkyGazer 512: I think that I fell into the same trap, with less excuse. The article now states "... the survivors of the French force, having been defeated in detail . . ", referenced to Bennett. Note that his sentence "Unfortunately for the French their forces were defeated in detail, but they did drive off the English horses, forcing the victors to retire on foot during the night to a nearby fortress" (about half way down, at the end of a paragraph) pretty well covers the whole hook. (With hindsight, if I was only going to refer you to a single source, this would have been a better one.) Will that cover it? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- You are correct about that, it seems I didn't notice the "defeated" part until you mentioned it; that does seem to cover the hook pretty well. For now, I guess we'll just wait to see if Mifter thinks what you have is good enough.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 17:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
