Talk:Siege of Chartres (1568)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Siege of Chartres (1568) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: European / French / Early Modern

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Assessment comments[edit]

I can see a lot of work has gone into this :) but....

(1) Wikipedia is about providing accessible articles for the general user; which often means not including everything that as researchers and editors we find interesting.

(2) I find it overly detailed in some areas and the wording often seems awkward eg this section; The crown forces did not immediately pursue the returning Huguenots, confident that their army would simply break apart over the winter months, from the lack of ability of the Huguenot leadership to pay wages to their troops, an easier resolution than another costly battle. However Conde and Gaspard II de Coligny were able to hold the army together through early 1568, and marched back to Orleans, linking up with yet more troops that had arrived from the south of France, who had already relieved Orleans from a weak siege, and taken the surrender of Blois and Beaugency in their absense.

(3) This may be because the article appears to be over reliant on one specific source eg Wood and it reads as if you're following his structure. Which works great for a 368 page historical analysis but here we need to summarise an entire chapter in a couple of lines.

(4) As previously, Maps really help :).

(5) I'm always conscious of the work that goes into these and I'd like other people to read them. As currently constituted, the article is comprehensive but not user friendly. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1) there are military articles that are a lot more detailed in my experience, like the riot of toulouse article,
(2) i shall address this
(3) i half followed his structure, but that's because his structure is in chronological order, and that's what wikipedia tends to follow, when his structure deviated from chronological order i jumped out of order, its fairly reliant because no one writes about this stuff, so as with my Michelade article i have to be fairly reliant
(4) i'll need to find one
(5) that's fair thank you for this feedback Sovietblobfish (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B class review[edit]

B class. I fixed a number of grammatical errors. Many were in the use of the possessive (example: towns cathedral > town's cathedral). There were a number of overly-long sentences that I split into 2 sentences. Please fix the following sentence because I don't understand what you mean in the second part. "This gave a total defensive force of around 6000 for Linières to rely on, though not all of that to the strength of a royal army." Djmaschek (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have fixed this sentence to be more clear Sovietblobfish (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]