Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Calais (1346–1347)/archive1

Siege of Calais (1346–1347)

 * Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

After his great victory at the Battle of Crécy in 1346, English king Edward III laid siege to Calais. The French king Philip VI had lost too many men and too much prestige at Crécy to be able to relieve the town and Edward succeeded in cutting it off from seaborne supply. After eleven months the town fell, and was subsequently held by the English for 211 years. This is the penultimate article in my 1345-47 series and I hope that reviewers will pick up its flaws and infelicities as thoroughly as they did with its fellow articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
Great to see this here. This article is in great shape. A few minor comments from me:
 * "at the conclusion of the Crécy campaign"
 * Done.


 * suggest "On 25 June, Jean de Vienne"
 * As usual with us I disagree re the necessity of post-date commas, but done anyway.


 * suggest "Since June, Philip had been calling on the Scots to fulfil their obligation under the terms of the Auld Alliance and invade England"
 * Done.


 * link abbot
 * Done.


 * is there any indication of what the English did to stop the French supply ships? Burning arrows? Obstacles in the water?
 * That's me taking stuff for granted. I have expanded "In late April the English established a fortification on the end of the spit of sand to the north of Calais, which enabled them to command the entrance to the harbour and prevent any further supplies reaching the garrison."


 * suggest " Edward repopulated the town with English settlers" Do we know where in England they were from?
 * A definition is "Someone who settles in a new location, especially one who takes up residence in a previously uninhabited place; a colonist" I didn't use "settler" because, to me, it rang oddly in respect of the "especially ... " bit; but now included.
 * From where: Not that I am aware of. Edward offered land grants and free houses to settlers, so I imagine that they came from all over, especially as a high proportion *OR alert* were probably ex-soldiers.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * all external links are good, no duplicate links.


 * Many thanks for the review Peacemaker67, and especially for its promptness. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. A pleasure as always. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley
The article is well up to the standards of this continuing series, but I boggle a bit at the absence of mention of the story of the Burghers of Calais, Queen Philippa's intervention and all that. The tale comes from Froissart, after all, and is surely the second best known thing about Calais after Bloody Mary's heart. You mention the Rodin statue, I grant you, but oughtn't the story to be recounted here, if only to be discounted if untrue? I don't press the point, but I feel I must mention it.

I think we could do with an additional line about Joan of Navarre and why it mattered to King Philip that she came to terms with Lancaster.

As to my usual minor obsessions about drafting points – "significant" used when nothing is being signified, "over" rather than "more than" – you've heard them before. I wonder about "Several French nobles sounded out the idea of switching their allegiance..." – doesn't one sound people out about ideas rather than the other way round? That's all from me. –  Tim riley  talk   06:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Both uses of "significant" removed.
 * Three cases of "over" replaced with 'more than'.
 * Both of the above added to my 'phrases to watch for' list.
 * "sounded... " Good point. Reworded.


 * On the whole I dislike popular culture sections, but I could add one with something like: "Twenty years after the event, the chronicler Froissart, who was employed by Philippa of Hainault, queen consort of Edward III, fabricated a tale by which Philippa, who was not in fact present, was responsible for having the lives of some of Calais' citizen spared at the end of the siege. This account was not considered to be other than allegorical at the time and scholarly opinion has always been that the event never took place."
 * But I suspect that a reader may wonder why I am telling them fairy stories as part of a serious article. If there is consensus that it should go in then, of course, I shall bow to it.
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I heartily agree about "popular culture" (i.e. trivia) sections. I thought perhaps you might add a sentence to the Rodin section just sketching the Froissart tale, with a health warning about its dubiety, but I'm not seeking to press the point. I'd still welcome a word or two explaining how Joan of Navarre's pact affected King Philip.   Tim riley  talk   11:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Tim riley]
 * Philippa: thank you. I have added the bare bones of the tale anyway.
 * Joan: apparently Philip had done nothing in response by the time of her death three years later. I have tweaked this slightly (I didn't want to get too off topic). What do you think?
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Both your additions are absolutely the sort of thing I hoped for. I now understand why Joan's pact mattered to Philip, and I think mention of the legend invented by Froissart strikes the perfect note. Happy to support now.  Tim riley  talk   20:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Image review

 * Why Medieval in the lead caption but then medieval in the Military operations caption? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria Because I can't copy edit. Thanks. Fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk

 * A while since I reviewed one of your articles, as they often get the sufficient supports/reviews before I even notice they have been nominated. Seems I'm luckier this time, will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "The resulting work, The Burghers of Calais, was completed in 1889." Why not show it n the article? Seems it would fit under memorial (there is some space before the notes below).
 * It seemed peripheral to me, but added.


 * There seems to be a duplink in "sacked" and "booty", both linking to looting. You can highlight duplinks with this script:
 * This is deliberate. "sacked" and "booty" are both words which a reader IMO may reasonably wish to check the meaning of, and while both link to the same Wikipedia article they are sufficiently different that I don't consider that explaining one would automatically give a reader an understanding of the other. Hence the duplink, which are not banned as such by the MoS.


 * The infobox image seems somewhat random. Is there no image showing some relevant building, location or such?
 * Good point. I have been unable to find an alternative image which I consider acceptable. The only one which gets close is Tour du Guet, but for me, not close enough. If you really don't like the generic image, which would be an entirely reasonable point of view, I will replace it with a location map.
 * Not a big deal, but you could consider the map if others bring it up. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi FunkMonk. Lucky for both of us that you got in in time for this one. Your three points addressed. Is there more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, these points were just before I started reading the text, will come back soon. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "The English "achieved complete strategic surprise" Quote according to who?
 * Rodger, p 103. To which the sentence is cited three words later. I wanted to avoid having the same cite twice in such a short space, or do you think that I should?
 * Usually I'd think such direct quotes should be attributed in-text, but since you don't do it elsewhere, it might break with the style. So I'm wondering why it needs to be a quote, and not just paraphrased? FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. Quote marks removed.


 * "campaigning in the south west" Against who?
 * The English. Should I specify?
 * It was unclear to me that they were also fighting there, maybe I missed something? If not, could be good to clarify. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. Expanded to clarify.


 * Link chevauchée in intro?
 * Whoops. Done.


 * Supports - looks great, wasn't much to complain about to begin with. FunkMonk (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat

 * Support - Echoing FunkMonk: there really is nothing to complain about with this. The only suggestion I'd have is for the two footnotes to have the same referencing format as the rest of the article, rather than showing them en clair. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your wish is my command, oh mighty SchroCat Gog the Mild (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes
I think we'll just need a source review to wrap this up, unless can sign off on that (as referencing was mentioned above). If not, please request one at WT:FAC. -- Laser brain  (talk)  23:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No probs: I'll pick it up today. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Source review
 * Formatting is all good;
 * The sources used are reliable, comprehensive and of the standard I would expect for an FA
 * Spot checks done on a handful of sources. The information cited is supported by the sources used; no evidence of close paraphrasing.
 * Pass - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi guys. In the light of the above, is it ok if my next nom sticks its head above the parapet? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  13:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)