Talk:Battle of Blanchetaque/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Display name 99 (talk · contribs) 14:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just so you know, I am a history student but I know very little about the Hundred Years' War, so please excuse any comments that may arise out of ignorance. I do however have experience in doing GAN reviews so I'm going to go ahead and take this one on. Display name 99 (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No problem. I am not sure that any hugely detailed period knowledge is needed for this one. Your comments below suggest that you are fairly on the ball anyway. If we get down to discussions of specific historic events I shall try to be detailed in my responses.

Lead

Add a comma after "Two days later." Display name 99 (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Can an extra paragraph be added in the lead in order to briefly discuss the significance of the battle? Display name 99 (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Background

From my limited understanding of the war, in 1340 Edward reasserted his claim to the French crown after his lands had been taken away. However, this claim was rejected and was the reason for the war. Edward never actually got to act as King of France, and it seems to me that if we say that he "assumed" the position of king that we're sort of implying that he did. Display name 99 (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The war started in 1337 when Philip confiscated Aquitaine. In 1340 Edward assumed the title of king of France (for the first time, according to a leading modern source "the event came as a surprise to the rest of Europe") in order that his allies who were vassals of the king of France could avoid making war on their sovereign, Philip VI of France. Instead they were supporting their (new) sovereign in his assertion of his rights. The ceremony took place in Ghent on 26 January Edward adopted new arms in which English and French arms were quartered. (This continued, as did the English claim to the French throne, until 1801.)

I would agree with you if I had written that he assumed the position, as you write above, but I don't. I write that he "assumed the title" which he did.

Add a comma after "In early 1345." Dependent and independent clauses in the same sentence should be separated by a comma. Display name 99 (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

"they were scattered" is plural, but "army," which is what it is referring to, is singular. Display name 99 (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

"It proved impossible to take any action with the main English army before winter." I'm a little bit confused as to why? Did they have to turn back to England because of the storm? Why couldn't the French sail across the channel and attack them? This could use some work. Display name 99 (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded.

Add a comma after "During 1345." Continue to add more commas between dependent and independent clauses. There are a lot of these.Display name 99 (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

"smashed" is too colloquial. Display name 99 (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed.

"Gascony".[16] on 1 April.[13] On 2 April" There appears to be a period there that shouldn't be. Display name 99 (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

More soon.

@Display name 99: Thanks for picking this one up. Your points above all addressed. Next installment eagerly awaited. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Continuing:

Prelude

What exactly made Edward want to cross Blanchetaque Ford? Where was he marching to? It's not entirely clear to me. Display name 99 (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battle

Comma after crossbowmen not needed. Display name 99 (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Add a comma after coast and dawn in the first paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

"a force of archers, which some sources say was led by Hugh, Baron Despenser" Which sources say this? Do others say differently? Display name 99 (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burne, Hardy.

No.

Well then why not just say "a force of archers led by Hugh, Baron Despenser?" By saying "some sources say," you're implying a measure of doubt. If some reliable sources are silent and others all identify a single person as commander, then I cannot find reason to suppose doubt. Display name 99 (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Done.

You have crossbow linked but I can't find a link to longbow. Display name 99 (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are both linked in the lead. I have now linked the first mention of "archers" to English longbowmen.

Do you think you could get rid of archers in order to just have it show longbowmen in the text, that way people know exactly what it's linking to? Couldn't crossbowmen technically be considered archers? Display name 99 (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another good point. Done.

Narrowly yes, but I think that referring to them as such in almost any context would be incorrect usage. I have never come across it. Most writers even avoid using 'bowmen'; I have seen this very occasionally, and it sticks in the memory because it is so unusual.

Add a comma after mounting and struggle in the second paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added after "mounting" in 2nd para and "struggle" in the 3rd.

Any further details on the no quarter practice? Any anecdotes as pertaining to this battle? Display name 99 (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Andy King was good enough to send me his "According to the Custom Used in French and Scottish Wars" which I reference this to. It's a pretty comprehensive survey. I can email you a copy if you would like - I don't think that it is readily internet accessible.

Not anything on prisoners from this battle, just that none were taken. It was established practise to trumpet the numbers of prisoners taken, it was usual for non-ransomable prisoners to be killed out of hand (sometimes ransomable and high ranking prisoners were, most famously at Agincourt). The previous battle, Battle of Caen (1346) 4 weeks earlier, ended in a massacre of everyone who couldn't run fast enough - modern estimates are >10,000 dead, and the battle two days later, Crécy, Edward III gave formal orders for no quarter.

Do we know how many men or supply wagons the French were able to capture? Display name 99 (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. All of the modern RSs are relying on one contemporary(ish) chronicle which says (translated) "a few".

@Display name 99: Points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

First sentence: Claimed by whom? Display name 99 (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guessing what your point will be I have rephrased this slightly. Better?

Source spotcheck

All sources appear to be reliable. Display name 99 (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, I'm gotten through the article. Please see my single comment under Aftermath as well as my two follow-ups above that. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Display name 99 All three addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, thank you for responding to these points. The article now meets GA requirements and I will be promoting it. Well done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]