Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Auberoche/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2019 [1].

Battle of Auberoche

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eight years into the Hundred Years' War the Battle of Auberoche was one of the first decisive land victories by either side and a significant humiliation for the French. For some reason the battle is little known and there are relatively few sources; nevertheless, I think that there is enough here to merit the nomination. Having recently gone through an ACR I am hopeful that the article approaches FA standard and invite you to have at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey, Robert (2008) is showing a HARV error. Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good start. I thought that I had removed him as non-RS. Apologies. I have now. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert, Cplakidas, CPA-5, Maury Markowitz, Nikkimaria, and Sturmvogel 66: Greetings to you all. You were good enough to have a look at and to comment on this article at ACR. It is now up for an FAC and I wondered if I could impose on you to have another look at it. If I can, then many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I reviewed this article at GAN, and was impressed. It is now better still. Since GAN the article has been expanded by more than a third, making it more informative (and interesting) without any excessive detail. The new location map is a distinct plus point.

I am taking a modest bet with myself that someone will query "routed" as an intransitive verb as I did at GAN before I turned to the Oxford English Dictionary. Struggling to find something new to carp about, I find the map/plan in the Bergerac section hard to read. Of course one can click on it and see it at a scale convenient for elderly eyes, but could it perhaps be displayed on the article page just a little bit bigger?

That quibble apart, on rereading the article I found it clear, interesting and well proportioned – good logical movement from stage to stage. A wide, and to my layman's eye, impressive array of sources, ancient and modern. Happy to support promotion to FA. – Tim riley talk 23:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: I see Gog the Mild's FAC for the Siege of Berwick is still open. Has there been a false start with this new nomination, given that the rules say only one FAC at a time per nominator? Happy to put my comments on ice if so. Tim riley talk 23:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: is a comment in these rooms merely a gin? Take it off the ice, he gained the necessary here. Good times. ——SerialNumber54129 23:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley Keep the ice, place in the gin, sit back, relax, enjoy. Serial Number 54129, bless him, is being both helpful and generous regarding my newbie errors at the outstanding FAC. Thanks for your support, and for your input at GAN, which gave this article a good base to move forward from; you flatter me with your opinion of the prose. It received a reasonably thorough review at ACR, so I am hopeful re FAC. Note that "routed" was not commented on :-) . I did comment re the map at the construction stage, but I didn't commission it, so it is what it is. I have played a bit with the compromise of making it large enough to read without clicking on and not taking over the page and have cranked it up a couple of notches - see what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better. Thanks for that. Point taken that you can't let it take over the whole screen. Tim riley talk 20:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a minor note, Gog. You may have already done this, and apologies if you have, but you really need to get papal (FAC coord) dispensation if you want to nominate a fresh FAC (on your own) before your last single nom one has been closed. Usually that is only given if the previous one is ready for close (three supports, image and source reviews). Just ping the coords. I'll take a look at this once that has been sorted out. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker: They already did. See my link above. ——SerialNumber54129 10:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed that. Wouldn't have hurt to have explicitly stated that when he nominated. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Np. Rookie error. Rotate him back to the Island now!  ;) On a lighter note, it means you can start earning your chow and get on with that review :p ——SerialNumber54129 11:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peacemaker67. Thanks for the heads up. However, the Supreme Beings have already smiled upon me, as SN54129 points out - they are on commission, which accounts for their enthusiasm. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't push your luck, dear boy! Tim riley talk 20:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Um. "they" was intended to refer to SN54129. Oops. I can see that some propitiation is in order. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Hm why not? If I can help you in your Hundred Years' War's serie than I'll do that with pleasure.

  • The Gascons had their own language and customs. Hm some scholars says it is a dialect of Occitan. So I think you should use the word "claim" in the sentence.
Done.
  • See some English and French crowns which are not capitalised. or holding some rights from the French crown as the monarch and others from the English crown as their liege lord.
Done.
  • There was no formal border between English and French territory. Significant landholders owned a patchwork of widely separated estates, perhaps owing fealty to a different overlord for each; or holding some rights from the French crown as the monarch and others from the English crown as their liege lord. Each small estate was likely to have a fortified tower or keep, with larger estates having castles. Fortifications were also constructed at transport choke points, to collect tolls and to restrict military passage, and fortified towns grew up alongside all bridges and most fords over the many rivers in the region. has somehow no citation.
How embarrassing. The cites had wondered off. I have retrieved them.
  • They anchored off Sluys in Flanders until 22 July, while Edward attended to diplomatic affairs. I think the "Sluys" part should become "Sluys (Sluis)".
Um. I see what you mean, but when I make the change it looks clunky and (IMO) breaks the flow of the prose. It is Wikilinked if anyone cares. Could you live with it as it is?
  • @Gog the Mild: Yes indeed, it is wikilinked. However it looks a little bit odd to me. I mean in this sentence The Earl of Northampton would lead a small force to Brittany (known at the time as Bretagne), a slightly larger force would proceed to Gascony (Guyenne) under the command of Henry, Earl of Derby and the main force would accompany Edward to France or Flanders. says the older version of the name Brittany called Bretagne and Brittany itself are listed in the article. Which is strange to me, the article use the current Brittany and old one too. But the current Sluis can't be listed? I mean the article could use Bretagne instead of Brittany and having a wikilink to Brittany's article or make a note, with the current or old name in it, same with Sluis right? Do you see the odd part? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Fair enough. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is already a "(40 km)" above this sentence in the another French army of some 9,000–10,000 men under the Duke of Normandy was only 25 miles (40 km) away.
Done.
  • "the first successful land campaign of... the Hundred Year's War", --> "the first successful land campaign of... the Hundred Years' War",
Oops. Done.

Hopefully this was useful. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: It is very useful. Thank you for once again running your eagle eyes over this. They are very good. All of your comments above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5 and Serial Number 54129: Typing this off a wonky airport internet. Well spotted. The quantity is correct (!!!) The reference is Rodger, at the end of the paragraph. My bad. Once I am back in the land of decent internet connections I will put an extra cite in, and add one to (hopefully) nail it down. It does smack of the incredible. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5 and Serial Number 54129: Right. I now have a cite at the end (Rodger, 79-80) which supports the whole paragraph; and cites for the two statements I think are "likely to be challenged". Ie, Bordeaux being more populous than London and the 100,000,000 litres of wine. The latter is on Rodger 79, but I think it bears sticking right next to the claim. The source gives it in tuns, a standardised volume (and the ancestor of the modern ton and tonnage to indicate a ships capacity) so I have done the maths, which I believe is allowed. The xix-xx bit is Rodger helpfully giving the number of modern (imperial) gallons in a tun. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Hmm may I ask you to put in the article? The article Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 uses 110 million U.S. quarts. So I think we've to go that way or we use U.S. gallons instead of U.S. quarts in both articles. If we use quarts than it is 110 million quarts if we use gallons than it should be 26,417,000 gallons. I think we can choose which one the article use. So which one should it be? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Done. I have gone with quarts. I am trying to use the common unit closest to the size of a modern wine bottle, to give readers a feel for how many bottles of wine this represents. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by PM

[edit]

This article is in really great shape, Gog. The only comment I have is that the lead says this was a decisive victory for the Anglo-Gascon force, but I couldn't find that description or words to that effect in the body, although it is self-evident from the Aftermath section, I think "decisive" should be used in the body and cited if it is going to be used in the lead. Alternatively, you could just more fully describe the aftermath in the lead rather than call it "decisive" per se. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PM, high praise indeed. I don't really like the word decisive, if only because it is overused. I haven't been self-critical enough there, so thanks for stepping in. I have rephrased the lead. Perhaps you could see what you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I meant, those changes are great. Nice job on this. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MM

[edit]

I read this during the A and loved it then, and its even better now. I particularly like the additions to the "During the first half" part.

I did some very minor GS and WS edits, mostly some vertical whitespace, and all I have left is...

Hi MM, thanks for the copy edit.
  • "The French in the camp to the north" - I assume this is the second smaller camp, described earlier? If so, "The French in the smaller camp to the north...", just for clarity. And I'm not sure about "the french", that sounds odd to these Canadian ears. "The French men..."? Hmmm, not much better. "The smaller French force camped to the north...", ahhh, that one maybe?
Reworded.
  • There's no cite in "There was no formal border", not that I personally care.
I think that it needs fixing for FA. Sounds like a job for Sumption, but I am temporarily away from my hard copies. I shall add a cite or two next week.

Clearly not enough to hold up the FA, so good to go as it is IMHO. Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the support. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Constantine

[edit]

I reviewed this at ACR and was very pleased with its quality. I don't really have any quibbles with it now, whether in extent, coverage, prose quality, except one: the lack of French-perspective sources, at least at first glance. I am not well versed on the topic's historiography, but what I have glimpsed from it occasionally (and from what I know of how the conflict is treated in English culture historically), there is more than a bit of triumphalism on the part of the Anglo-Saxon authors. Not that this necessarily impedes their scholarly qualities, but one does occasionally get the impression that they root for one team in particular, especially among the older generations. This may be reflected in texts in innocuous ways, e.g. where the French side are simply "the French", whereas on the English side, the commander(s) are mentioned by name, given agency, their motives (and errors) explained, whereas "the other side" is almost an impersonal force. This inevitably seeps through to us when we rely on them, and I've come across this often enough in my own work (I do write on the Balkans and the Middle East, after all) to think that I can detect this influence here. Now, it is of course possible that on this battle, the contemporary French sources are silent or not as detailed as the English accounts. It is also likely that the sources cited (which are all very reputable) do make the best possible use of this limited material and can be assumed to present a fair and comprehensive treatment of the topic, or that the modern French scholars have not dealt with the topic in the extent the British have. The point is, I don't really know, and, long story short, I simply would like Gog the Mild's opinion (or of any other informed reviewer) on this, as the one who has read the sources in question and has a grasp of the bibliography. Constantine ✍ 15:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) To be fair, even the French article uses solely English (and far fewer!) sources; but to adhere to—and prevent anyone opposing on—criterion 1b, may I suggest that GtM inserts a small section—a level 3 under "Aftermath" suggests itself?—dealing with the approach different chroniclers took to the battle. Hint: Froissart is your go-to guy on this one (remember how, for your last one, at least Scottish chronicle was used? Same thing). ——SerialNumber54129 21:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently travelling. I had started a lengthy discussion of Constantine’s point, which I think is a good one. However, SN−54129 has put a it much more succinctly. I shall try something along the lines they suggest, which at worse will give us something concrete to discuss. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Constantine. I noted your comments at ACR, and put this forward for FAC regardless, although I agree that you raise sound points above, and they need to be addressed. I have five articles on the Hundred Year’s War in Gascony in 1345-46 which I would like, eventually, to submit for FAC. All rely on substantially the same sources. So, at some point, the adequacy of them as a group needs to be addressed.
The short response to your point is that there simply aren’t any modern French sources which deal with these campaigns. Come to that, there are precious few English ones: two specialist books (Fowler and Gribit) and Sumption’s general, but very detailed, book. A slightly outdated summary (1999) of the sources by Vale can be found here. P 69, ignore the first paragraph, 71 and nearly all of 72. Essentially he says that pre-1360 there is French (er, the British professor, not the language) and nothing else. Things have improved slightly over the past 20 years.
Can I point out that I am not shy about incorporating foreign sources where they exist. I recently nominated the great French victory of 1312, Battle of Bouvines, for GA. It incorporates, I think, a reasonable spread of French sources and its spine is drawn from a Belgian author. In my five Gascon articles I have been so desperate for French sources that I have included Guizot in one which I wrote from scratch, in spite of it dating to the 1870s. User:Newm30, who is knowledgeable about things French and late Medieval found one I had missed – here. Note that it covers eleven campaigning seasons in its brief summary and dates to 1895. I was excited in spite of this, until I realised that it was actually one of Froissart's (see below) versions; no doubt new in 1895, but not today.
The theatre is under-represented in all of the literature, overshadowed by the Crecy campaign and the siege of Calais. Additionally, French historians tend to concentrate on their successful periods: before, eg Bouvines, or after, eg the Carolinian phase of the Hundred Years' War, rather than the period of incompetence and abject defeat. This does, as you point out, mean that much examination of the French forces and commanders is missing. I don’t doubt your points about authors having unconscious national biases, but if the source material is not there for them, it simply is not there – they have to do the best they can with what they have.
Regarding contemporary sources, well obviously they all wrote in French. The main chronicler, as User:Serial Number 54129 points out, is Froissart: a French speaker who came from what is now France and was then the Holy Roman Empire; much of his work was commissioned by the English court, but was widely accepted as an accurate record across Europe in its day; although Rogers, in the work cited next comments "Froissart is not reliable". Other Medieval sources – see Rogers p 93-94 for a summary – include William of Dene (English), the St Omer Chronicle (French), Chronique de Bazas (French), Chronique de normande (French) and another French source now lost but copied independently in three slightly later compilations. In sum, the contemporaneous sources which the modern authors use are mostly French. (The nation, not the language.)
I had agreed above to include a section on the sources, even to quote direct from them. The more I think about the latter, the less happy I am about quoting 650+ year old sources, unfiltered through modern experts; considering that a filtered version is available. Could I invite discussion on this? I am also feeling unhappy about writing a separate section on the sources. This is normally only done when the sources fundamentally disagree. Here, for the most part, they don't. Sure, there is room for scholarly debate, but there is more divergence between Froissart's three versions than there is between him and the other chronicles. (I would be happy to quote modern scholars on this.) This being the case I don't see that it would add to the article for the average reader, and would be there purely as a fig leaf of purported national balance. I would welcome comment on this too. (Where the chronicles do diverge on details I prefer to cover it as it arises, as in the first paragraph and a half of Battle of Bergerac#Battle. Apparently it was a confused running battle and no one could work out what the hell happened - one can hardly blame the chroniclers for also being confused.)
Gog the Mild (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild. Sorry for making you going through all the trouble, but you are right, at some point this would have to be addressed. The situation you present on the sources is more or less what one would expect, and one that appears frequently in other eras and regions as well. Regarding a source section, I generally find them useful, perhaps not for the average reader, but certainly for anyone more interested in getting a quick and ready overview for further study; indeed, if there are divergences in the primary sources that affect modern (or not-so-modern) scholarship, or if you are forced to quote primary sources because either no modern sources cover the events in the same detail, or because the modern sources essentially follow the primary ones verbatim, or because you need to illustrate the differences between two or more traditions of primary sources, you really have to discuss their relative merits in a dedicated section first.
For the present article, I agree that it probably would be overkill; however, it would IMO be pertinent for the overview article Gascon campaign of 1345, unless you also plan another, broader article on the Gascon theatre in general (and as long as the group of sources for 1345 is the same for the region throughout this phase of the conflict) or you can point to a relevant section elsewhere (we really should at some point have a Historiography of the Hundred Years' War article).
For the record and for the benefit of this review, I support the nomination without reservation. Constantine ✍ 11:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Constantine. Yes, you did make me go to a lot of trouble. But , as you say, it needed to be thrashed out at some point. It took me a while to get there. Partly because I wasn't sure what my opinion was re the details; partly to try and source what I was saying rather than spout self serving OR. I think that you see where I am coming from. I am content to go with your proposed solution. I shall write a section on sources. If I put it in Gascon campaign of 1345 that covers Bergerac and Auberouge, but not, theoretically, Aiguillon nor Lancaster's chevauchee - in 1346. However, I have an article planned - Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347 - where I think this would fit reasonably naturally. See the third "topic" down in User:Gog the Mild/Tasks#Targets for the coverage. Does this sound reasonable?
The modern sources for this are (much) more varied than those for the Gascon articles, but the core is the same 6-8 scholars and there are almost no new contemporary sources. Yes, we could do with a Historiography of the Hundred Years' War article. I would be hesitatingly willing to write the 1345-49 section. If pushed, 1337-49. That leaves a lot of years to be picked up. When I do the proposed sources section, could you remind me to revisit this?
It is reassuring to have you keeping an eye on this series. Please be as free with advice, on anything, as you ask me to be with your wannabe FAs. (I suspect that is a redundant request.) Ditto for any TPWs or editors referred here. All comments and suggestions gratefully received.
Gog the Mild (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed solution would be perfect from my point of view; indeed such sections are better suited for articles discussing a broader and self-contained period/set of events. Looking forward to your next pieces of work :). Best, Constantine ✍ 14:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Constantine Good. Thanks. Well, I am having a short break to work on some First Punic War naval battles, but I shall return. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • All sources are high quality, given the scarcity of coverage of this period and area.
  • You are inconsistent with the publisher location for Boydell.
Now consistent.
Corrected.
@Sturmvogel 66: Many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • There seems to be something odd going on with the coding of the lead image - are there multiple captions for some reason?
Yes. Although not for any reason. Extraneous captions removed
  • Would it be possible to provide a inset country map with the map of modern Nouvelle-Acquitaine? It would help provide context for those less familiar with the region
Good idea. If I had the faintest idea how to do it, I would. It must be possible. I shall start researching. Hmm. To save me what could be a lot of work, what do you think of the solution I have implemented.
Good idea. Done. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria That was quick, thank you. Points addressed. Possibly not how you would prefer. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's workable - suggest making it slightly larger, the colouring makes it a mite difficult to see. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, how’s that? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Better. I do think an inset would be preferable if possible, but if not this is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think that I know someone I can outsource it to, I will ask them. And I appreciate the FAC not being held up over it. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2019 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Auberoche/archive1&oldid=1138455493"