Talk:Battle of Pontvallain/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Alex Shih (talk · contribs) 16:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the submission. I will slowly go over each section of this article thoroughly for the next several days hopefully, before doing the GA criteria checklist. Alex Shih (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Lede

• I took the liberty and tweaked the first paragraph, as "significant" was mentioned in the following paragraph, which makes it slightly redundant. Also, I thought it was contradicting to describe the battle as "a engagement", then quickly explaining that it was actually "two separate engagements". Therefore I have adjusted the phrasing accordingly.
• their 30-year reputation for invincibility in open battle: This claim is properly summarised in the "Legacy" section, but I am concerned that it is somewhat vague. The Hundred Years' War began on 1337, so it has been 33 years. Is there a reason why the claim cannot be more precise? Also, if this battle is significant for being the first time in 33 years that the English forces were defeated in open battle, shouldn't the military strength of the English forces and their previous success be mentioned somewhere in the "Background" section, so that the claim does not appear to be coming out of nowhere?
  • Many thanks for your adjustments, appreciated. I've added a chunk of deeper background on the origins of the wars and previous successes; don't think I can make too many comparisons between the size of the armies used over the years without drifting into the Sea of SYNTH  :) I mean, the numbers are available, but no RS that I can find has made the comparison for us?
    • The lede looks fine to me now, thanks! Perhaps a bit short in comparison to the length of the article, but the important points are all covered. Alex Shih (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

• For the very minimum, strengths and casualties needs to be cited, otherwise there is no way to verify these claims/numbers. For instance, where did the number 5,200 come from? It is mentioned in the body sections that the French raised 4,000 men and 1,200 men, but that paragraph is unreferenced.

@Alex Shih: I've no idea; I didn't write the infobox, only the unimportant bit: the other nine-tenths of the text :) Probably should be removed WP:V. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 10:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Background

• "burning all the country which refused to pay ransom money.": When I think of "ransom money", I think of something or someone is being taken prisoner; if Knolles is simply raiding and sacking towns and villages, wouldn't it be "tributes" instead? Or is there some missing context that the "ransom money" is alluding to?

It's not specifically referring to "ransom money" per se, but rather the act by which the English held the towns to ransom. @Alex Shih there. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I see, I think the act of capture should be mentioned in the same sentence. Instead of just that quote, what about ...capturing many French towns in the process, and burnt them down once they "refused to pay ransom money"? Just a thought. Alex Shih (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

No probs. Have incorporated that, cheers, with a little tightening of the prose.

Thanks! Your writing is much better. Alex Shih (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• The English campaign in the west began achieving some successes: This is very confusing. I am assuming that this campaign is a separate one from Knolles, but where is this "west" referring to? If the English is marching through in the order of Picardy, Champagne, Normandy and Maine, it would appear that this campaign started in the north of France, moving eastward before marching west, a path that is strikingly similar to the one Knolles took (Calais-Reims-Paris-Vendôme). More context and preferably a map is necessary I think.
  • You're dead right, of course—it was a completely different army. Maybe they were clearly doing a pincer movement on a grand scale, although again, I can't find an RS that explicitly terms it such, which is a shame, as it would bring an element of modernity..
    • Indeed. Either way, it looks much more clear now. Alex Shih (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• ... by 1370, ...men such as Chandos and Knolles were summoned from their retirements: I think this section should come earlier, as it provides the context needed before going into the detailed military maneuvers made by Knolles. By the way, since Chandos already died in 1369, this sentence does not make much sense at the moment.
  • Agree, moved and Chandos relegated to a footnote, if not of history than to this page  :)
    • Reads much better now, thanks! Alex Shih (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• However, it is possible that either the King...: This part sounds like speculation. Is it drawn from the Fowler 2001 source? If so, the sentence should be phrased along the lines of "according to Fowler..."
  • It was Sumption, but he's firm enough on it (a copy of the contract exists to indicate their concern) that I can state it rather than mealy-mouth around it—done.
    • I see. The section reads with more clarity now. Alex Shih (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• The remainder, numbering about 4,000 men: This paragraph is not really coherent and does not appear to be relevant to the section "Tactics and strategy", more of a repetition of the "Divisions among the English leadership" section. I would probably remove the entire section.
  • Totally agree, in fact most of it was (bizarrely!) a near-duplicate of stuff from the "Divisions in leadership" section—so anything sourced and relevant has been moved there, the reast boshed.
    • Looks fine now. Alex Shih (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Part two

Background

• As I went through this section previously, I don't find anymore outstanding concerns (I took the liberty and copyedited some minor issues).
  • No problem, many thanks.

Battle of Pontvallain

• The maps look absolutely stunning. License/template checked, good editorial choice using switcher here, the order of battle are making much more sense now.
• desperate fighting: Seems to me only the English was fighting desperately?
  • Well I don't think the French were laying out suntowels and having a BBQ  :) but I know what you mean; I think I've clarified?
• the chronicler: Is this chronicler the contemporary chronicler mentioned earlier in this section, or is it Pierre d'Orgemont? I think a clarification would help.
  • Pierre d'O.—clarified.

Aftermath

• out of fear of admitting the French as well as their countryfolk: Why would they fear admitting their countryfolk? Or is this sentence meant to say "out of fear of admitting the French as well if they open the gate to admit their countryfolk".
  • Indeed the latter; better now?
• ...while the English nobility Knolles because of his low social status: This sentence did not make much sense to me, so I've temporarily removed it.
  • No worries. I reinserted it having looked up the most important word that I'd missed out—"blamed."
• The Sumption reference at this end of this section doesn't flow really well; I've tried to rephrased the sentence, but if you don't mind please take a look again to see if it can be phrased better.
  • Right.

Legacy

• ...in the region: did you mean "in the range"? I am unable to read the source directly, but I am curious about how did they come up with a precise number. In any case, the currency needs to be adjusted for inflation, in which I have done.
  • "In the region"—yes, a synonym for "around," perhaps; I usually use "in the range of" for something witihn two points. Cf. WP:RANGEBLOCK, eh :D
    The exactness of the currency is quite clever actually—well done for picking up on it ;) —and I've hopefully explained why t was actually a much rounder figure than it looks in an explanatory footnote...? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

References/Bibliography

• Extensive list of sources, and every source has been used, properly formatted and every source has been used appropriately; no concerns here.

Checklist

• Serial Number 54129, dear friend, that's all from me for now. I'll be taking my time and add more comments in the coming days, but I think this article would benefit from some major copyediting in the hands of WP:GOCE or somebody else, as I am not a good copyeditor. Interesting article, thank you again. Alex Shih (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Many thanks for your work so far on this Alex  :) looking forwad to Part Deux! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Serial Number 54129, my apologies for the long delay. I've been gone through the article again and didn't find much concerns. Once my latest comments are addressed, I will do another cold reading of the article and run the GA checklist. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Alex Shih, see if what I've donesuits. When you've cooled off of course  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I followed up with some copyedit of typos/formatting/inflation adjustment. Running the checklist tomorrow JST, thanks! Alex Shih (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Alex  :) —whoooah, JST?!—that must be pretty late there by now? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, past midnight now so got to get this over with. Alex Shih (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Pour a nightcap first :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

1. Well written: While ideally the article could use several more rounds of copyediting, the quality at the moment is certainly very well written and is enough to meet the GA standard.
2. Verfiable: While there are quite a few offline sources, they are all to certain extent verifiable. Every paragraph is sourced appropriately with inline citations.
3. Broad in its coverage: The coverage is certainly broad for a battle that lasted around one day; the information on background and aftermath are comprehensive and concise at the same time.
4. Neutrality: The wide variety of sources used in this article is reflected in the neutrality of the writing. Conforms to WP:NPOV standard.
5. Stable: While the article is continuously improved, the content in general is very stable with minimal significant changes in the past one month.
6. Images: After requesting maps for this article, three maps were provided and I believe the article is now comprehensively illustrated. I am passing this article as a Good Article based on the criteria. Thank you for your contributions and your prolonged patience. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)