Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Aiguillon

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Siege of Aiguillon
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

A turning point in the Hundred Years' War which has been almost completely ignored by historians. In 1346 Prince John, the French King's son and heir, marched a "huge" army into Gascony, supported by a large siege train, five cutting edge gunpowder cannon and every military officer in the royal court. They besieged Aiguillon, "the key to Gascony". The English commander, the Earl of Lancaster, adroitly avoided battle, harassed the French commumications, and repeatedly ran supplies through to the besieged town. After more than five months John abandoned the siege under direct orders from his father, who needed all the troops he could muster to face an unexpected invasion in the north by Edward III. John's army arrived two weeks after the French army of the north had been crushingly defeated at the Battle of Crecy.

This recently passed GA, and I hope that it might have the potential to pass A class. I am quite sure that it has many flaws, so your pointing out of them would be appreciated: go to it! Gog the Mild (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Chetsford
What a great article. Among other things, I learned what a chevauchée is.
 * 1) All the basics (DAB, EXT links, etc.) seem to check out. Earwig shows copyvio 'unlikely'.
 * 2) MOS:LEADLENGTH says an article of this size should have a "two or three" paragraphs lead and this has four, however, one paragraph is just a sentence so I think it's fine as-is.
 * Now reduced to three.


 * 1) Insofar as I can tell images are properly licensed but someone better qualified than me will check that.
 * 2) I feel like this sentence — Philip VI repeatedly ordered his son, the Duke of Normandy to break off the siege and bring his army north, but Normandy, considering it a matter of honour, refused. — could be restructured into two. I say that because the first invocation of "Duke of Normandy" is, I believe, a paranthetical expression and should be followed by a comma. To add a comma, therefore, would make this a very difficult sentence containing five commas (it already has four).
 * Good point. Done.


 * 1) I'm not entirely certain a comma is needed in this sentence: The three parts of the French army each dug impressive earthworks, to protect themselves both from sorties by the garrison and from Lancaster's main army. However, I might just be reading this incorrectly; action or disregard this comment at your leisure.
 * Some people like to place a comma before a final 'and'; I don't. I understand it to be optional.


 * 1) One of the sources (Fowler) is a dissertation and a quick Google search seems to indicate the author subsequently was awarded his PhD for it; ergo, it should qualify under WP:SCHOLARSHIP and is fine. All the other sources are from academic or major mainstream publishers. No claims in the article are un-cited, though I have two questions below.
 * For info: Fowler went on to become the Professor of Medieval History at Edinburgh University. He used his thesis as the spine of The King's Lieutenant: Henry of Grosmont, First Duke of Lancaster, 1310–1361, the first detailed account of a single, pre-Poitiers, Gascon campaign since the 15th century. I prefer the thesis - the prose is mostly identical, but he cut the thesis down to size for the book and I find a lot of the tables and detail he removed useful. Let me know if you would like more information - several of the leading experts in the field explicitly praise his work, even though one would normally have thought that it was a little dated. A sample of his subsequent books and papers.
 * Note 1 has no source and I feel like the fact Earl of Derby is a subsidiary title of Lancaster is not such common knowledge that it can go without one. Though, I may be wrong.
 * You are quite right. I copy and pasted from another article and lost the cite. Fixed.
 * Under the section "Gascony" the following sentence is sourced to the paragraph level (Rogers 79-80): "Among their cargos were over 100,000,000 litres of wine." However, I can't find this on 79-80 of Rogers.
 * Rodger (not Rogers) Safeguard of the Sea (2004). You will probably also want to look at page xix, last line, and page xx, first two lines. Let me know if you have any problems and I will scan and email the pages to you.

Nice work! Chetsford (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Your looking this over, especially so promptly, is appreciated. Sharp eyes there, you had me kicking myself a couple of times. Thanks. If your review of the sources was meant to be a source review - from the look of it I think it was, or is enough for one - I would be grateful if you could explicitly flag this up. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! Chetsford (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert
Support: G'day, Gog, looks good - I have a few suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Gascony is overlinked in the lead
 * Fixed.


 * suggest linking: dysentery, River Garonne (red link potentially?), siege train, levies (probably to Conscription), and Dordogne
 * All done. (Garonne was linked, but not at first mention. I think that my reading of [[WP:


 * in the infobox, I suggest potentially changing the caption of the image to clarify that it is a painting by Jean Froissart
 * Done.


 * so long as Aiguillon, "the key to Gascony": suggest attributing this quote in text, for instance: "described by X as "the key to Gascony"..."
 * Done.


 * "five cannon" or "five cannons"?
 * Either usage is acceptable, see. Happy to change it if you prefer cannons.
 * No preference for me ("cannons" in British English, I believe), but my main concern was that you were using both "five cannon" and "five cannons" -- you have now removed the second instance, so it is all good as they say. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * in the investment section, It included a siege train and five cannon --> already mentioned in the previous section
 * Sorry - last minute tinkering. Removed.


 * lines of communications --> "lines of communication"?
 * Oops. Fixed.


 * It had sailed but never landed: do we know what happened to it? Was it lost at sea?
 * Done.


 * and the French were again aware of this --> "and the French once again became aware of this"?
 * Done.


 * in the Aftermath, two months this was devastatingly successful -- suggest summarising the results of this in maybe an additional sentence, if possible
 * Done. (What do you think?)
 * Looks good, but I would suggest splitting the sentence before "modern historian Jonathan". AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Um. The dislocation etc refers only to the Quercy raids; ie, the bit between the semi-colons is a whole. So that is the last place I would split it. Clearly I am not being clear, so I have had another go at it.
 * No worries, the later change works for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * in the Sources, the hyphenation of the ISBNs is inconsistent (e.g. compare Harris with Burne)
 * I really thought that I had checked that! Done.


 * in the Sources, is there an ISBN for the Gribit work?
 * If you mean 2016b, it is an extract from Henry of Lancaster's Expedition to Aquitaine, 1345-1346: Military Service, ie Gribit 2016. So has the same ISBN. I could run the two together if that is the form?
 * Hmm, not sure sorry. I'd probably leave as is at the moment and see what other reviewers think. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * in the Sources, move the link for the Boydell Press to the first mention
 * Done.


 * same as above for the Oxford University Press link
 * Done.


 * sources appear to be reliable to me based on publishers/authors, although I hasten to state this isn't a period I know much about, so if there are any nuances in historiography etc I will have missed these
 * referencing looks good to me / formatting appears consistent
 * some of the images might be better placed as left-aligned, rather than having them all right-aligned (suggestion only)
 * Done.
 * Suggest maybe right aligning "File:JeanIIdFrance.jpg" (so it looks into the article), and left aligning "File:Aiguillon - Tour de Tourasse -1.JPG". AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * Many thanks for yet again reviewing one of my nominations. I always feel better once your keen and experienced eyes have gone over an article. I think that I have addressed everything.
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5
Greetings Gog what a nice page you have. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * A bridge over the Lot, 5 miles (8.0 km) from Aiguillon, was easily taken, but it was necessary to construct a new bridge over the Garonne. remove the ".0" is not necessary.
 * Done.


 * Also remove the second "(8.0 km)" in the "French withdrawal" section in the sentence. The English fleet paralleled its march, devastating everything up to 5 miles (8.0 km) inland and destroying most of the French navy in its ports.
 * Done.


 * Please remove the "(80 km)" there is already one, above this one in the same section. Lancaster moved the focus of the fighting from the heart of Gascony to 50 miles (80 km) or more beyond its borders.
 * Done.


 * The plural word "cannon" is British English, "cannons" is American English.
 * Done.


 * Strange why is the town of Aiguillon not in the infobox, but instead of Agenais?
 * Done.


 * Please remove the last dot in He launched three separate offensives between September and November. Local, Gascon, forces besieged the few major strongholds in the Bazadais region still held by the French; they were all taken, including the town of Bazas.[45].
 * Done.


 * Hi Apologies for the delayed response. I missed the alert somehow. Thanks once again for your painstaking scrutiny. All points now corrected. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey it's okay, you've to be really busy, if you missed some comments in some reviews. But it is a well-earned support of mine. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review - all images are appropriately licensed and have appropriate captions, but I have a query I raised in another review about what sources were used to draw File:Guyenne 1328-en.svg. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This has been resolved via the other review. Good to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)