Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Morlaix/archive1

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

• Featured article candidates/Battle of Morlaix/archive1

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another in my long running Lance and Longbow series, this article is about the first significant clash on land of both the Hundred Years' War and the Breton Civil War. A large French army attacked a smaller, possibly much smaller, English force and it ended badly. I am much reminded of Wellington on British cavalry 500 years later.

Our officers of cavalry have acquired a trick of galloping at everything. They never consider the situation, never think of manoeuvring before an enemy, and never keep back or provide a reserve.

This has recently been much expanded by me and is fresh from a GAN review by Serial Number ^Redacted so thorough as to approach the rigorous. All comments, concerns and complaints are welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 18:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "He was released in 1943 on condition that he gave up the struggle. " - Was he released by the Free French or the Vichy? The date appears to be wrong

Vichy. His goalers freed him in the chaos of the German take over. Clarified.

• " By July Joanna had been forced back to the far west of Brittany" - is this an alternate name of Jeanne of Flanders?

Sorry, as this is the English language Wikipedia they should be standardised as "Joanna". They are now.

• Is there a link for cog as referenced in the caption?

Linked.

• "Northampton's 1,350 men are described by the historian Jonathan Sumption as being half men-at-arms and half archers. while Kelly DeVries says most were archers" - comma after archers instead of the period, or were you intending this to be two sentences?

Whoops. Comma inserted. (Not something I type very often.)

The sources all look to be reliable from a quick glance. I don't think I have anything else to add to this. Hog Farm _Talk 20:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm. Is that it? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks good to me. The GA reviewer didn't leave much for later reviewer to complain about. Supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 21:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• File:CarlosIdebritania.jpg needs a US tag

• File:Miniatura_dei_Carmina_regia_02.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another clear, well sourced and highly readable article from Gog about the Hundred Years' War. I look forward to supporting its elevation to FA, but first a few quibbles and carps.

• "and was shot to pieces by the English archers using longbows, it then broke without making contact" – needs a stronger stop than a comma.

Replaced with a semi colon. That do?

Yup. Tim riley talk 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "his younger half brother, John of Montfort, claiming the dukedom; Joan was married to Charles of Blois, a well connected and militarily orientated French nobleman" – and there will be fisticuffs if Gog again persists in forgetting my wise words about three missing hyphenations and, in "orientated", two superfluous letters.

Oh deary me. Clearly old - and incorrect - habits die hard. Fixed. Um; I can only fond two missing hyphens. Should "militarily oriented" be hyphenated?

You're right, I think that the last doesn't need a hyphen, and I withdraw.

• "Philip found the idea of having a relative as the duke attractive, it would bring the traditionally semi-autonomous province more firmly under royal control" – another comma splice that needs a stronger stop.

Semi coloned.

• "Their fleet of 260 ships, including an unknown number of galleys, took the Genoese by surprise and 11 of their ships were burnt" – 11 Genoese ships, I presume, but it isn't entirely clear. If my assumption is correct may I suggest "took the Genoese by surprise, burning 11 of their ships"?

Restructured to, hopefully be clearer.

• "a force far inferior to that of the French" – we've been here before, too. Numerically inferior no doubt, but let's not get judgemental here. Perhaps just "a force far smaller..."?

Tweaked.

• "Edward III was planning to follow on with a substantial force, so Northampton's first mission was..." – I write as an old codger, and many younger non-codgers may disagree, but I don't regard "so" as a proper conjunction in formal English prose. In my view you need "and so" here.

Humf I say, as an old codger myself. Now "proper".

• "Morlaix is approximately half way between Brest and Guingamp" – I was going to ask for a hyphen here, but to my surprise the OED renders "halfway" in this sense as a single, unhyphenated word, so there you are!

:-)

• "Charles left it well-provisioned and well-garrisoned" – neither hyphen is wanted.

SOme people are never happy. Repositione elsewhere in the article.

• "Charles' force greatly outnumbered the English" – we've been through this before: if Charles is to be pronounced à la française then plain ess-apostrophe is right, but as John isn't Jean in your text and Philip isn't Philippe I think we are firmly in the realm of anglicised renderings of French names, and so Charles would be pronounced with an "s" on the end and the possessive would be Charles's.

A barbarous usage. Reworded to avoid the necessity.

But there are still five incidences of Charles' without an ess-apostrophe-ess. Or are you saying that just ess-apostrophe is right? Tim riley talk 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I pronounce it "charles" and struggle with the idea of it being pronounced "charleses", but I shall have a look at the others and see what might be done.

Hmm. I have cut it back to two cases, but we still have a disagreement as to whether even one is acceptable.

• "Even this was only sufficient for perhaps fifteen minutes continuous shooting" – either fifteen minutes' continuous shooting (with apostrophe) or fifteen minutes of continuous shooting.

Drat! Good spot.

• "although as the battle wore on the rate of fire would slow" – you and I are at one about eschewing superfluous commas, but I think a comma here would usefully break up "the battle wore on the rate"

I try hard not to argue with you over such things, if only because I usually lose. But for the life of me I cannot see where a comma might permissibly fit, much less improve the flow; although any possibility would certainly break up the flow. You have my permission to insert a comma into the sentence wherever you think best.

I'd put a comma after "on", but it's your text and I don't presume to pontificate. Tim riley talk 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Modern historians differ as to its composition." – This is the fourth "as to" in the text and one does begin to notice it. Perhaps just "about" here and there?
• "was made more difficult for the French by their mercenary crossbowmen having deserted" – have I bored you before about gerunds? Well I'm going to again. Grammatically this sentence should be " ... their mercenary crossbowmen's having..." but as that is a lumpen piece of prose, may I suggest "made more difficult for the French because their mercenary crossbowmen had deserted"?

You certainly may. (I am pleased to hear that your AI Gog is all but indistinguishable from the real one.) Changed.

• "the first time the English tactic of deploying their men-at-arms on foot with massed longbowmen on either flank was used outside Britain" – this is bound to pique your readers' interest, and it would be a kindness to add a footnote saying when and where it was used in these islands. And are you sure "Britain" rather than "England" is wanted here?

Re Britain, unless you wish to claim just outside Perth as English, which would be likely to pique some readers. I was considering adding a short paragraph to the main article about where historians consider Morlaix fits in the development of the English tactics. It seemed a bit of an overloaded, but this morning it seemed more reasonable. What do you think? Whatever it is I shall either footnote or main article the information, although it may not be for a couple of days due to social committments.

It was just a suggestion and I leave it in your hands. Tim riley talk 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. I hope some or all is helpful. Tim riley talk 15:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, all of it is most helpful Tim. Thank you. Most comments actioned and all responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After final rereading I'm happy to sign on the dotted line and support the consecration of this article as an FA. Tim riley talk 19:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]