Talk:Battle of Pontvallain/Archive 1

MILHIST initial assessment
Nicely put together article. Weak point is that it derives solely from a single source, albeit a good one. In order to pass reference and citation, greater variety of sources need to be used. Monstrelet (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you,  ;)  better? &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna Rarely receiving pings. Bizarre. 14:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Easily meets B now and hope it succeeds at GA. Nice work. Monstrelet (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers, - it was coming across your comment here that started it :) take care, &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna Rarely receiving pings. Bizarre. 19:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Queries

 * "what Jonathan Sumption has called "a prescient precaution"" Is there a reason why a statement by Sumption is cited to Fowler?
 * Snow blindness?! Heh. It was, though, Sumption, Div. Houses p.89.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Bertrand du Guesclin had been a prisoner of the English and been ransomed by Charles V of France.[16] Charles promptly appointed du Guesclin constable of France" According to my sources after being ransomed by Charles he led an army in Castille in 1369. So "promptly doesn't really work. And given that it was the fourth time the poor sod was captured by the English and ransomed, I am unsure about the usefulness of that whole sentence. Instead I could paraphrase something from Wagner's "recognizing in the Breton, who was more skilled at leading routiers than ﬁghting pitched battles, the ideal commander for the Fabian tactics the king planned to employ against the English" if that works for you.
 * Well spotted on those two. Happy to run with your tweaking of du Guesclin. ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

To do list

 * 1) Have a read through and flag up anything you're not happy with or which needs further information or work.
 * 2) There are five unused references. Do you want to see if you can find something in each of them to cite the revised text? (It would be nice to keep them.)
 * 3) The three campaign maps: you have the source as "own work", which is fine as far as it goes. However, each then needs a "... based on ... " giving the source (as in citing a source) where you got the information from. This may be a map in a book, or a page range in a book or article.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that we are getting close. If you could have a look through per 1 above, I will then give it a final polish and you can look at 2 and 3 at your leisure and then it's nomination time. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the tardiness of the reply, major, I'll be opeing up shortly.
 * You're not tardy. It's not as if Wikipedia is going anywhere.
 * "Major"?


 * The map of France after the Treaty of Bretaigne; thos eold maps alsways look dusty; I wonder if we could pop over to the good folk at the WP:GRAPHICSLAB and get a modern svg version?
 * We could. Personally I quite like old maps when they are illustrating old topics. They seem to lend an air of verisimilitude. There is this one - File:Traité de Bretigny-es.svg - in French. You could ask the graphics people to translate it.


 * I think we'll raise eyebrows with £353,761,235.95505...not so much the size, but the precision. And It's hard to imagine medieval exchequers as accounting to five decimal places  :)
 * Ah. The subtle difference between "sigfig=6" and "sigfig=-6".


 * MOS:SANDWICH problem with the image of du Guesclin v. the maps?
 * It only happens if a reader clicks show all, which is not the default; so I don't think that it's a problem. You do?


 * Are we sure the lead's long enough at 18832 chars, and per WP:LEADLENGTH etc?
 * No. I had deliberately left it until we had got the main article (more or less) agreed. Leads are easy to increase or decrease. Sorry, I should have flagged this up above. I'll have a go at adding to it.


 * How about sub-linking Litter to Litter_(vehicle)?
 * Very clever. Done.


 * I haven't removed it because I dn't know if you or I wrote it :)  but any idea what Whether to Derval or Concarneau – one and then to the other – means?!
 * It was you . I have had a go at tidying it up, but feel free to change.


 * Crikey: we mention quite a few historians by name...gonna have to NOFALSETITLE 'em all!
 * I'll go through and label them.
 * In Legacy I have labeled May McKisack, but I think that it can be assumed for those immediately after.


 * Yes, I'd liket to keep the five sources too. The asiest way would probably be to restore the stiff you removed :p  I'll have a look in the meantime.
 * Nah. There was too much deep background from 30 years before. But I like the look of the sources. There must be some not completely spurious way we can work them in.
 * Cheers, . I made a few tweaks, but nothing magor: moving links, punctuation etc mostly. I'll sort out sourcing for the maps too. ——  SerialNumber  54129  20:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I was lazy because I knew that you would be checking me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Right, sorry about the delay ("Leaves on the line"), but I've gone through it again. Rescued a few of those unused sources by judicious tweaking of sentences; had to get rid of Billaud (sp), as for some reason that was citing Isabella the Shewolf as being unpopular and I have no idea why I needed to reference that to a 19th C. legal tome :)  did big work to the refs;  would have been very disappointed in me!  It goes to show how old the article is though, that I thought that was acceptable  a couple of years ago. Also added data to the campaign maps.The only thing I'm not sure about is all those pics bunching at the bottom; perhaps we should get rid of one or two of the castles?  ——  SN  54129  19:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey ho; going back to some of my old GAs with a view to working them up to A class has had me wincing at the referencing several times. And twice closing them up quickly and pretending they were nothing to do with me.
 * The two castle pictures look fine to me. They don't bunch on any display I can lay my hands on.
 * I am working through my pre-nom checklist, which is likely to throw up random queries. Such as:
 * Cite 69. I don't have access to Carlin and Crouch, but are you sure that a work partially titled "1200-1250" covers an event in 1370?
 * It doesn't: but it does provide the most detailed explanation yet as to how 1 mark = 2/3 £ etc. So in this sentence, sumption provides the figures, Carlin & Crouch the methodology.
 * Unless you differ, I am going to change all of the "equivalent to £XXX in 2018" to '2019'.
 * Seems fair. Is there a way of getting it to update automatically?
 * "They eventually reached the relatively safe haven of the ford at Saint-Maur; Calveley's army ... was already within." Something missing here. One can't be within a ford.
 * Aye, "had already crossed"? I meant, was within S Maur, rather than within the ford.
 * There may be more to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Beyond Saint-Maur was a strong English garrison at the Abbey" Would this read better as 'Beyond the ford was a strong English garrison at Saint-Maur Abbey'?
 * Yeah!
 * Infobox "Strength": it is not usual to put cites in the infobox. I suggest removing. One of the cite 1's needs removing anyway.
 * Good point. I think we might want to double-check the info box anyway—it's a hangover from the previous version of the article, and are the figures, commanders correct?
 * OK. Bar the points above, it looks good to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Check! ——  SN  54129  04:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have messed around with the infobox. What do you think?
 * I never got round to expanding the lead. Easily done, but can you just confirm that you still think it necessary. (I do, but only marginally.)
 * Rereading, the first two sentences of the "Battle of Pontvallain" section reads oddly; as if it were the intro to the main battle, somehow displaced. I am happy to give this encounter a little more context, or would you prefer to?
 * Rereading, the first two sentences of the "Battle of Pontvallain" section reads oddly; as if it were the intro to the main battle, somehow displaced. I am happy to give this encounter a little more context, or would you prefer to?


 * Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gog, IB looks better (well, without removing it completely of course). Bizarre I neer noticed Britany was in there! (cf the snow blindness mentioned above perhaps.) We could eave the lead until the actual review—see what people say; if someone says it's a little short, then that's easily addressed, and if they don't, then, well.I think I see what you mean about that opening sentence: feel free, obviously, to give it a tweak! Or move it completely? ——  SN  54129  12:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Lead; agreed. Of course, if any of the reviewers read this page ...
 * Not a lot I could do with that opening, but the two battle narratives now flow, are internally consistent, sourced, and don't contradict any source I found. At least, I think so ...
 * So, feel free to light the blue touch paper.
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Good stuff! Err. Well, I will if you want; but at some point you must have noticed that I'm the Typhoid Mary of FAC noms :)   ——  SN  54129  17:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah. Good point. I am sure that it isn't anything you don't deserve . I on the other hand, have FACs which fly through; you may have noticed that I currently have two up  . No doubt because my heart is pure. Shall I do the honours and co-nom you? (Seems odd when you have done all the donkey work.)
 * I am assuming that when we get queries: prose, grammar and images is me; sources, focus and missing facts/details is you. At least for first response. Yes? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Deal! In other words, I will do all the stuff that can be bollocked for :D Let's dooooo it. Cheers GtM.  ——  SN  54129  18:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Tis done sire. Don't whinge. You do all the dirty heavy lifting where no one notices; I furnish the easy, twirly bits that everyone sees. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable division of labour to me.
 * I had a panic when the talk page disappeared: "Gah, what have I done?" Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Truley Marxian,  :)Yes, perhaps I got a little carried away with my spring cleaning...  ——  SN  54129  19:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

OK. So far the twirly prose is getting the kicking. Sorry about that. I am working on it. It improves quite a bit, but I obviously need to get it damn near perfect.


 * A query: "Others made their way to Saint-Saveur." Do you know where in France this is? (Or what happened to them once they arrived?) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "According to Christopher Allmand, "the days of Crécy and Poitiers were over": Pontvallain "destroyed the reputation the English had for invincibility on the battlefield"."
 * This reads as if "destroyed the reputation the English had for invincibility on the battlefield" is a quote from Allmand, but it is cited to Gillespie. Do you know which it is from?

Gog the Mild (talk)
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)