Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Sluys

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Sluys[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Battle of Sluys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The first significant clash of the Hundred Years' War was this naval battle. It was a disaster for the French, who lost 90% of their ships captured and 90% of their men killed, including the two senior military officers of the realm. Illustrating why the war was to last so long, it had virtually no operational or strategic effect. I took this article to GA nine months ago and have worked on it on and off since. Suggestions for further improvements would be welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

  • in the lead, silted-up as it is a compound adjective
Done.
  • in the lead, suggest "the French of 230"→"the 230-strong French fleet"
Done.
  • suggest using River Orwell rather than just Orwell, 'tis is an obscure waterway
Done.
  • it is a bit weird using Sluis and Sluys in the same article. If Sluys was what it was called then, perhaps stick with that? Or use "Sluis (also Sluys)"?
My mistake. Done.
  • mention in the lead that the French ships were being separated and in a state of disorganisation when they encountered the English fleet
Done.
  • link Genoa and Monaco, also Flanders
Done.
  • drop the italics for castles
Replaced with inverted commas.
  • link Displacement (ship)
Done
  • link Southampton and Hastings
Done
  • "6 galleys,"→"six galleys" this occurs later as well
Both done
  • link Dieppe, Le Treport and Mers
Done
  • link Admiral of France at first mention in the body
Done
  • full stop and no space after corsair
Done
  • who were "Edward's continental allies" referred to here? Gascony? The Flemish? Given some allies re-appear later, perhaps this needs an extra sentence?
Rewritten to cover this. Thanks.
  • link Zeeland
Done.
  • Genonese
  • move link to Zwin up to first mention
Done.
  • suggest a comma after "English slipping past"
Done.
  • link Bruges
Done.
  • again, who were the "hard-pressed allies"
Done. (I hope.) See my comments elsewhere.
  • the sentence beginning "The French were anchored..." seems redundant?
Good point. Largely deleted and the paragraph reordered to be clearer.
  • "fouled against each other" seems a strange phrase. What does fouled mean in this usage?
Replaced with "entangled with each other". (See Foul (nautical).)
  • "Béhuchet's tactics proved disastrous" do you mean his decision to rope the boats together? Or to separate them?
Clarified.
  • Flemish allies? But earlier it says that Flanders was neutral?
Good point. Earlier mention t the Flemings earlier neutrality deleted. It's not really germane and confuses the reader. I hope that this, togother with the mention of the Flemings rebelling and joining the English, is sufficient explanation for a reader to follow.
  • link Harfleur
Done.
  • "to run men and munitions to Scotland" perhaps indicate why?
Tweaked to try and clarify.
  • link Isle of Wight, Portland, Teignmouth, Plymouth and the Channel Islands
Done.

That's all I have. Mostly wikification, but a few substantive queries to address. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67. Thanks as usual for your thorough going over. It has been interesting seeing what I was missing tem=n months ago; sorry that it meant that you needed to point out all of the Wikification. All of your points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Great work on this. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources all appear to be reliable and of high quality. No formatting issues I could see. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

I'll do this one tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • He jailed them, causing the Genoese crews to mutiny As a non-Briton I can see that the word "jailed" isn't a British English word but instead it is an American English word. Please change it to gaoled.
Actually, jail is the normal UK usage today, and has been for about 50 years. As it says on Wiktionary, gaol is "dated". The Guardian newspaper's style guide comments "Jail, not gaol (inexplicably, the Guardian persisted with this style well into the 1980s, long after everyone else had changed)".
  • @Gog the Mild: I knew this answer would come. I use the dictionaries who still use gaoled. Like Collins [1], Dictionary.com [2], Merriam-webster [3], even my favourite one Oxford Dictionary does [4] and many more dictionaries the only dictionaries who says it's dated or even archaic are Urban Dictionary [5] and Cambridge Dictionary [6]. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: "the only dictionaries who says it's dated or even archaic are Urban Dictionary [7] and Cambridge Dictionary [8]". Plus the two RSs I provided links to above. Plus Wikipedia - "dated, British and Australian English". My trusty paper Chambers which I have had since 1972 gives preference to jail. Even my 1962 two volume Oxford Dictionary accepts jail as a UK usage. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I told you dictionaries not reliable sources which can be anything and everything. This looks the same scenario as the word "connexion" which is by some sources and Wiktionary dated but others like Oxford, Collins and Merriam-webster says it's still not dated. So I guess "it's not dated" if some dictionaries still use it. Yes modern-day English uses the word "jail" a lot of more than gaol but gaol is still official and dozens of reliable dictionaries says "goal" is British and "jail" is more a standardised version of the two. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Tim could you be kindly to have a look in the gaol VS jail discussion too? Which one is the most correct in British English and most British one? Also Gog I reckon this discussion is waiting for an answer. Because this one is standing here for awhile it's like we forgot this one. Anyway I think we shall wait for our "a language expert" (aka Tim) his answer. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Apologies. I hadn't realised that you had meant the above as an actionable comment. If you look at the MoS spelling chart under "UK & Ireland" you will see "jail, gaol" in a green box. The MoS states, above the chart, "boxes in green show use of British spellings". I take this to mean that the MoS finds either of these variants acceptable as British English. I note in passing that New Zealand and Canada have only "jail", and it is still in a green box as a "British spelling". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see then I guess we shouldn't remove jailed to gaoled. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a senior advisor, insisted that putting to sea "American advisor"
Well spotted. Changed.
  • believed that it totalled between 120 and 150 ships.[25][20][26] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
Done.
  • small number of other English combatants.[43][38] Same as above.
Done.
  • the passage of enemy ships, "like a line of castles".[29][20] Same as above.
Done.
  • lines across the three miles wide estury No metric units?
D'oh! Done.
  • This one is a little odd. In the former sentence lines across the three miles wide estury it says 3 miles but you changed it to 2 miles was the 3 miles sentence incorrect then?
  • No, it means that I was typing with my thumb. Thank you for being on the ball.
  • that the attack took place at 3:00 p.m.[b][31] The article has two kinda letter notes. The first one has the letter before the citation and the second one is been at 11:23 a.m. on 24 June.[20][c] where citation is before the letter note.
Good spot. Standardised.
  • Ref 30 "pp. 381–84." --> "pp. 381–384."
Done.
  • number of other English combatants.[43][38][43] Two 43s refs.
Sorry. I copy and pasted to reorder the refs when I thought that I had cut and pasted. Sorted.
  • rest of the French were immobilised.[38][35][39] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
Done.
  • and, to a lesser extent, other Mediterranean ports. [7][8] The space isn't necessary.
Removed.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again CPA-5, I do appreciate the ceaseless way in which you check over the sloppiness in my articles, and the thorough way in which you don't let anything get past you. All of your points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You forgot a spot "ref 30 pp. 381–84. --> pp. 381–384." Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Hello gentleman me and Niki are waiting for already over 10 days for your changes. Could you please address or reply to those comments? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Apologies. I seem to have got half way through and then abandoned it. Your points now addressed and I shall set to work on Nikkimaria's. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC) PS Thanks for the ping.[reply]
G'day CPA-5. Just checking you've seen this one. Looks to be addressed? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:BattleofSluys.jpeg: source link is dead
Replaced with a link to the original image in the Bibliotheque Nationale de France.
  • File:Kogge_stralsund.jpg needs a US PD tag and more details on the source
I struggled, and so have replaced with an image which I hope is better licenced.
  • File:Edward_III_noble.jpg needs a tag for the coin itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I wonder if you could help me with this one? I am not entirely, or even at all, sure what you are asking for. (I am guessing that it is a 3D AND 2D copyright issue.) I thought that the Classical Numismatic Group double licencing covered it, but I am a neophyte. I have looked at about a dozen coins in other FAs and can't see where this image's licencing is inferior. Is there a Wiki-policy or something you could point me at? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, it's a matter of 3D vs 2D copyright - the current tagging covers the photograph of the coin, but not the coin itself. The coin is in the public domain due to age and just needs a tag to say so. See the Commons page on currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, thank you. I think that that set me straight. I found the multiplicity of Commons guidance pages unhelpful - I probably didn't find one that was pitched at my level of ignorance - but going back to your advice above and first principles I hope that it is now correctly licensed. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Don't forget about lastauthoramp=y for your multi-author works
Done.
  • Why does Hanay have a page number in the refs?
Because it is an encyclopedia article and I understood that one should give the page number(s) in such cases; similar to Crowcroft above it. I will cheerfully take it out, but note the extended conversation on the correct formatting of EB articles on the article's talk page and on my talk page.
I'll take a look, but I'm honestly not too concerned as I can see how it would analogous to a collection of chapters or articles like a festschrift.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Scolar Press in Hattendorf spelled correctly?
According to Google and WorldCat; see also here.
  • References are high-quality and otherwise properly formatted
  • Citations properly formatted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sturmvogel 66 and thanks once again for your review. You are keeping busy; if there is an article or two of yours which needs looking at, do let me know. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a couple of my articles could use a source review, if you feel up to it. An opportunity for some niggle payback, perhaps?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moi! Niggle? The very thought. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Edward's continental allies, several states of the Holy Roman Empire, joined by the Flemings, who had revolted against France during the winter, launched an April offensive, which failed. A French offensive commenced on 18 May. It met with mixed fortunes, but Edward's outnumbered allies were desperate for the English army to reinforce them. This bit reads awkwardly to me. Perhaps a punctuation issue in the first sentence? And maybe the last two sentences should be combined?
You are correct. Heavily tweaked.
Better, although I'd probably combine the middle and last sentences, possibly with a semi-colon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Barbavera, the experienced commander of the galleys, was concerned about this. He realised that they would lack manoeuvrability in their anchorage and be open to attack from the ship-based English archers. Combine these two sentences.
Done.
  • He advised the French commander Singular or plural?
Oops. Good spot. Plauralised.
  • Has anyone validated Nicolas's calculation of high tide in the last 170 years?
No. He goes on the work of the astronomer royal, as explained in the footnote. I cannot find any contradiction in the literature, and given how easy it is to check such things these days I would assume that his calculations have been checked. Rereading I am not sure whether it would be better to simply remove this sentence. What do you think?
I suspect that historians simply haven't bothered. And given that the eyewitness chroniclers are unanimous in saying that the battle began later, I think that it's better removed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.
  • As it became clear that the battle was going the way of the English their Flemish allies comma after English
Done.
Thanks Sturmvogel 66, done. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Sturmvogel 66, done. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Sluys&oldid=903570516"