Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Calais (1346–1347)

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Siege of Calais (1346–1347)

(

)

... that the largest English army to serve overseas prior to 1600 was gathered at the Siege of Calais in 1347? Source: Sumption, Jonathan (1990). Trial by Battle. The Hundred Years' War. I. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 978-0571200955. P. 578.
- ALT1:... that the largest English army of the Hundred Years' War was gathered at the Siege of Calais in 1347?? Source: Ormrod, W. Mark (1990). Edward III. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300055061 P. 17.

Reviewed: Ernst Klink

Improved to Good Article status by Gog the Mild (talk). Self-nominated at 12:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC).

. Good on all counts. AGF for offline sources. I think either ALT is fine, both are interesting.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Came to promote, but I'm wondering about what feels to me like a minor language tweak -- would it be incorrect to say "gathered for the Siege of Calais" rather than gathered at? "Gathered at" sounds off to me, as a siege isn't a place, but I don't want tweak that if there was some reason for using "at". --valereee (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: I am not too bothered. “for” is ok. My reasoning for using “at” was to represent that that was where the number was achieved. In theory an army could gather in England “for” the Siege of Calais but, for whatever reason, not make it there. Note earlier in the article a reference to an army which assembled in England in 1345 ‘’for’’ a campaign in Normandy; they sailed but never landed. But this is a pedant’s point, for is fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I resemble that remark! :D --valereee (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I was pointing out my own pedantry, but feel free to join the club. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)