Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Caen (1346)

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) 00:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Caen (1346)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Battle of Caen (1346) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another article on the Hundred Years' War. At least it is not about Gascony. This features the much-vaunted English army of Crécy a little earlier in the campaign. Completely out of control both before and after they stumble to victory in their assault on Caen. A stain on England's record which neither discomfited them nor persuaded the French to battle. I think that it is there or thereabouts in terms of A class; if not, don't hesitate to let me know. Sturmvogel 66, you assessed this at GAN, and if you would care to kick the tyres again I would be grateful. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up the map
Done.
  • File:Prise_caen_1346.jpg: possible to provide the link for the BNF source?
Done
  • File:EdwardIII-Cassell.jpg needs a US PD tag, and should include author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added US tag. The author (of the image, not of the text of the book the image is from) is unknown. Not credited in the book nor the image and some basic research hasn't thrown up anything. The book was published in 1902; the image was based on a very similar one from the 1857 edition. I am not qualified to =judge whether it is different enough to have generated a new copyright. If this is a problem I can readily switch in an older image.
Without seeing the older image I wouldn't be able to tell you definitively, but in general the UK has a fairly low level of originality required for copyright protection, so it's probably safer to say that a new copyright was applied. Given that, and given that an unknown author working in 1902 could very well have survived past the 70-years-ago mark, I'd suggest using an older image. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Hello again, and many thanks yet again for doing this review. Responses above; two straight forward, one with a query. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I reckon that it wouldn't pass the UK test. But I found the 18thC portrait they are all based on, which is a fine image, so have swapped that in.
File:Edward III (18th century).jpg
Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria The offending image of Edward III has been replaced with one which is, I believe, correctly tagged. See above. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. A few comments from me:

  • "During 1345 Derby" could do with a comma after 1345
Done. (Although it looks odd to the point of seeming near random to me.)
  • suggest moving the Normandy map down to opposite the third para of the Prelude, as that is where it is relevant.
Of course. Thanks. Done.
  • comma after "Brittany and Gascony"
"Brittany and Gascony" occurs twice. I have installed a comma after one, but am not sure that it is the one you meant. I would be grateful if you could check.
  • link English Channel at first mention
Done.
  • drop the year from "early on 26 July 1346"
D'oh! Done.

That's all I have. A very nice article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67, that made my morning. Only five fairly minor points. Makes me feel that I am getting there. All five addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on this, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Great article I only have some comments.

  • devastating the country for up to 8.0 km (5 mi) the nought isn't necessary.

True. Someone has anachronistically switched miles to kilometres. It may have happened then. Fixed.

  • Looks like you read too much American books As Edward maneuvered his troops into position "American maneuvered".
I do, I do. Always have. I was the bane of my teachers in that respect. I am very grateful that you don't.
  • Nah I'm not a fan of American books written in American English. I mostly read them in Dutch (my native language).
  • over the grave of his ancestor William the Conqueror no English reigns?
No. William is not in anyway relevant, other than in being an ancestor, which is stated, so the omission is deliberate.
  • English knights are recorded as having saved some young women How many women?
No idea. I don't suppose that anyone was counting at the time, and the source just says "ladies and girls".
  • Hey it could be funny if someone count them at the momment.
  • By 12 August they were 32 km (20 mi) the "(20 mi)" isn't necessary.
Fixed.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA-5. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Gog sorry to had a late review. Normally I'd have a review last week but I was (and still am) really busy in real life (with family stuff). I couldn't find something else so I guess I will support this one as well. Also because I am really bussy in real life I will try to have a look tomorrow in the Gascon Campaign, but I doubt it would happen. If not then I'll do it next weekend. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey CPA-5, many thanks for the review and for the support. I appreciate both, as I hope you know. But, family comes first! We all have a real life, and we need to pay attention to it. Not that I don't value your comments when you have time for them, no one else seems to have quite your eye, but there is no need to feel an obligation. Concentrate on your family stuff, and I hope to have a non-Hundred Years' War article for you to look at when you get back. Take care. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Gog happy to see you again. Yes indeed family comes first and I was already planning to have a Wikipedian break (this also would be my first Wikipedian break in the past two and a half years) even it would be a short one. So I will be back as soon as possible I guess which would be possible in begin March. Anyway it was a pleasure to work with you and the rest of the team. I guess we will meet each other in the future mate. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack[edit]

Fascinating article. Just few quibbles:

  • the assault on the French-held town by elements of an invading English army under King Edward III as a part of the Hundred Years' War. Elements of the English army of 12,000–15,000 – the two "elements" read a bit awkward. Maybe (not sure) change the second sentence to "These elements of 12,000…" to have the connection?
Good spot. The whole thing reads badly, so I have reworded the guilty sentence. See what you think.
  • English ships found their way to various ports over the following week. – Ports in England, or ports of their possessions in France? Isn't entirely clear to me, but important for the understanding I think.
Ah yes. I reworded this over a different issue for another reviewer, and clearly made a hash of it. Slightly tweaked to clarify.
  • With their initial plan now unnecessary – So they were able to seize the old town? I wasn't sure while reading. This could be stated for clarity.
And again you have put your finger on incoherence by me. Thank you. Much of the paragraph rewritten.

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jens, many thanks for this. Your points addressed. Anything else? Do you think that it covers things ok big picture-wise? Not too detailed, not too superficial? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes. No, no further comments; the background section is neither too detailed not too superficial, I felt well informed and prepared for the main part. You have my support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • and the Northampton Something missing here, I think
And again in the text! Both fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing anything else worth mentioning. But I'm going to reread this in a day or two and see if I pickup anything else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Great Council, Gascony and the Duchy of Aquitaine
Done.

Source review[edit]

  • All sources properly formatted.
  • Add |lastauthoramp=y to Crowcroft to match the citation format
Done.
  • What does inactive 2019-03-16 mean in Ormrod? The link seems to work, although I dn't have a subscription. That also needs to be noted.
I have no idea. Removed.
Subscription icon added.
  • Why do you have an editor in Prestwich? Is it some sort of compilation or anthology?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is just an error. Thank you for picking it up. Corrected.
I don't think so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did it for you to expedite things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: Many thanks for picking this up, and for being so thorough in rooting out my errors. Your points above all now addressed.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:22, 6 April 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_Caen_(1346)&oldid=891731833"