Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Breton Civil War, 1341/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 December 2024 [1].

Breton Civil War, 1341

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the beginning there was a happy little dukedom. Then the wise old duke died. And for 24 years afterwards everything went very badly indeed. This is the story of how it all began. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Michael Jones isn't the same guy as Matthew Bennett?
It took me forever to work out what you meant. Thanks. Fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also a little surprised not to see Jones, Michael, 'The Breton Civil War', in Palmer, J. J. N. (ed.), Froissart: Historian (Woodbridge, 1981), 64-81.
Cheers, SerialNumber54129 18:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha. Several searches threw up nothing for "Breton Civil War", which surprised me. Of course, if I now add "The" I find it, but even so buried deep. And very little cited. Any hints as to how I could access an electronic copy? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, apologies—I didn't watchlist this so missed your reply. Yes Palmer'thing seems to be as rare as rocking horse teeth but luckily he republished it in a collection in 1988. Winging its way to you AWS. SerialNumber54129 17:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]

Hi Jens and thanks for stopping by to look at this so promptly, and apologies for the idiocies you have had to point out to me. Hopefully they are now all satisfactorily addressed. Further apologies for getting wrapped up in some other reviews and leaving you at the back of the queue. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • At first, I was confused about the article scope, thinking that the article is a complete coverage of an event called the "Breton Civil War". But in fact, it seems to cover only the first year of a longer event. This would be clearer if "Breton Civil War" would be linked to the main article in the first sentence.
I have no idea why I had not already done that. Thank you. Done.
  • In the infobox, "Breton Civil War" links to War of the Breton Succession, which seems to be the main article. But is "War of the Breton Succession" just an alternative term for the Breton Civil War, or does it convey a different meaning? If the former, shouldn't be the title of this article under the same name, for consistency?
There is no requirement for consistency between articles. But I do think that there should be consistency in this case. To avoid repetition can I refer you to the last discussion of the article's GAN review, here, especially the n-gram (reproduced here).
  • Adding to the confusion is the "Campaignbox Breton War of Succession" below the infobox. This has "Initial campaign" bolded, which seems to indicate that's our article here (again, consistency? Shouldn't it be "1341" then?). It also has "Nantes" (in brackets) which links to "French defence" in the same article. Why have this Nantes in the box when it is not a separate article, why is it not "French defence" (the actual section in the article), and why does "English Invasion" (the other main secion in our article) does not appear in that box?
I am a little wary of campaign boxes, not least because other editors can be touchy about them. Another editor added "initial campaign". But it seems as good a succinct summary for the campaign box as anything. Perhaps you would prefer 'Campaign of 1341'? I don't think a bald '1341' would be very helpful to a reader. "Nantes" seems to be a historical remnant and I would be happy to take it out once we have agreed what the initial link will be called.
I am ok with "Initial campaign", I won't withhold support based on that. BUT I still think that the reader would benefit from more consistency here. Maybe you could also change it to "Opening events", to match the wording of the first sentence of the lead. Or, conversely, change the first sentence of the lead to "Initial campaign". You could even consider moving the article title to "Initial campaign of the Breton Civil War" or "Opening events of the Breton Civil War", which would be more descriptive ("1341" is less helpful for most readers as it doesn't indicate if these events are at the beginning, middle, or end of the civil war). These are just suggestions, but more consistency would have helped me when I tried to make sense of all of this initially. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead now starts with "The initial campaign of the Breton Civil War took place in 1341 ..." I have removed "Nantes" from the CB. I suggest that once the FAC is over I set up a proper discussion regarding whether it should be renamed, and if so to what, and advertise it appropriately. Perhaps after a discussion on moving War of the Breton Succession. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A complicating factor was the war between France and England which had broken out in 1337. (This was the Hundred Years' War, which lasted until 1453.) – The gloss feels unnecessary; I would instead suggest simply A complicating factor was the Hundred Years' War between France and England, which had broken out in 1337.
You are not the only reviewer to think that. Already changed, although not precisely as you suggest. Suggestions for further improvements welcomed.
Wikipedia is famously an unreliable source. What other articles claim is beyond my control. Note that my sentence only "seems to suggest that it is a separate" war in 1341. Given that there was a formal truce in the 100YW for the whole year and that no English soldier set foot in Brittany that seems reasonable. If, in the lead, I were to start commenting on what was to happen in the future I may well get (even more) scope concerns. That said, how about if I tweaked the last sentence to 'The war was to last 24 years, frequently as a part of the Hundred Years' War.'?
Sentence looks good. Actually, initially, it was the category "Battles of the Hundred Years' War" in your article which made me think it is part of that war; I only checked the other article to confirm that. So it looks like that category is misplaced?
Sentence changed as discussed.
Category: IMO, yes. But on a quick skim every other article which is about or from the Breton Civil War is also a part of the 100YW. So we are likely in a mug's game trying to repeatedly explain to good faith editors why this one is the exception.
Fine with me. Not that I ever really understood the category system anyways. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead: John refused to give way and Philip sent an army nominally commanded by his son to impose Charles. – I found this confusing, since this son has not been mentioned before. The lead also does not mention why it is so important that his son commanded. As the son has no further context here, I would suggest to just remove "nominally commanded by his son" from the lead.
Ok.
  • Charles of Blois was present when John arrived and was almost captured. – This is ambiguous; I first thought it was the other way around, that John was almost captured, not Charles of Blois.
Gah! Another case of my reading the meaning I wanted to find as I copy edited. Fixed. I think, I would be grateful if you could check.
  • "River Loire" – Since "River Loire", in a capitalised form, would be a proper name, I would have expected that the entire name is linked (River Loire), or, alternatively, that "river" is not capitalised ("river Loire" or "Loire river").
River Loire linked.
Rest looks good! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Jan_z_Montfortu.gif needs a US tag
Done.
Nikkimaria, thanks for checking through this. I thought we were ok with French public statues and architecture? Per L122-5. Or is there a tag for that? Gog the Mild (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
L122-5 extends only to non-commercial uses, which for our purposes is non-free. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drat! Swapped for an appropriately tagged image from 1621. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

I concur with Jens that the title is confusing: "[Events of] 1341 in the Breton Civil War" would be clearer and follow practice in other articles. As written, it sounds as though it should refer to a discrete civil war that took place entirely in 1341. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. I am happy to change it. The usual procedure is for this to happen as soon as the article leaves FAC - either archived or promoted - as the FAC bot gets upset if asked to process an article which changes its name mid-process. I undertake to so rename the article once it is out of FAC. Hi Jens, that work for you? If so I'll put a heads up on the article's talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • duchy of Brittany: gets a capital, when used like this as a proper noun.
Capitalised.
  • A complicating factor was the war between France and England which had broken out in 1337. (This was the Hundred Years' War, which lasted until 1453.): the bracketed sentence is, frankly, a bit ugly. Generally speaking, it's not great practice to bracket a whole sentence. Why not expand "the war" into "the Hundred Years' War", or add (which became known as the Hundred Years' War) after "France and England"? I'm not sure we need to know in the lead of this article that it lasted another century.
Done.
  • A truce was in effect, which was due to expire in June but was extended to June 1342.: I think we need to add "1341" for clarity here.
Done.
  • Rumours of this reached Philip: of his promises to make a treaty, or laziness about doing so?
Clarified.
  • Joan's claim was through her husband, Charles of Blois, a nephew of the King of France, Philip VI (r. 1328–1350): it becomes clear later that this meant Charles would become the Duke, but it isn't spelled out here. Do I have it right that Joan would strictly inherit the duchy, but Charles would then hold it jure uxoris?
Academics have written whole articles on issues closely related to this. My understanding from the sources I have read is that Joan couldn't inherit at all, being female, but there was an argument that this impediment didn't prevent her from passing the title on to her husband. Two of the sources I have read state that John had the stronger legal claim. Note that this is according to French law, Breton law was slightly different. Gah! This is defying easy summary, I could send you a page of Sumption who describes the situation fairly clearly. (Perhaps not surprisingly as he went on to become the highest paid lawyer in the UK and then a member of the Supreme Court.)
I'd be interested to give that a read, if you don't mind. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you send me a blank email I will then be able to send you an attachment.
  • set up her two-year-old son, also John,: I think we need also named John or similar.
Done.
  • This was the start of the Breton Civil War which was to last 24 years.: comma before which, I think, though appreciate that this can be a contentious one.
It is indeed a contentious one. However, before getting here I had already copy edited the first bit away as a duplication of the opening sentence.
  • the Duchy of Brittany, while a part of the Kingdom of France for most purposes, was in many ways an independent principality: Can we indicate what at least the most important of these ways was? How do we square it being basically independent with the "most purposes" for which it was part of France?
This has been rewritten, broadly in line with wording suggested by Borsoka.
  • John had the better legal claim, but it was widely accepted within Brittany that Charles would inherit: any idea why?
Hey, this is summary style. Sources are vague, it would be stretching a bit to even say that the Breton nobility expected Philip to back his nephew. (As he eventually did.) John III had advocated for "anyone but Montfort" for most of his life, marrying Joan to Charles was largely to improve Joan's political and legal claim. These long held assumptions probably contributed to the expectation, but again it would be stretching to overtly say so. Sumption puts these next to each other, making it obvious what he thinks, but declines to spell it out. I don't know that the sources let us go much further than what the article currently says.
I might be able to have an informed view on this after reading the Sumption source you kindly agreed to send, but will reserve judgement for now, as I don't currently have one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, encouraged by his ambitious wife, Jeanne of Flanders,: my WP:GNL siren is going off here. We've introduced a whole plethora of men, all claiming a duchy, and the only one who gets labelled as ambitious is the wife? If we have reason to suspect that Jeanne was unusually ambitious by comparison with Charles and the Johns, we should give it: otherwise, this reads as negatively judging a woman for something that would be considered unremarkable or positive in a man. Advise cutting.
My response to this has twice disappeared, I assume because I had too many windows open. I'll try again.
It was meant admiringly, she is much admired by historians as an inspiring leader, but I can see how it looks. So cut.
  • He then successfully took control: advise cutting successfully as redundant: we would hardly think he unsuccessfully took control if it weren't there.
Hah! True. Done.
  • John moved on to an alternate plan: alternative, I think.
Oops. Corrected.
  • The caption alignment seems a bit odd on a few (Charles of Blois, Philip and the siege). It's best for accessibility to keep a consistent left margin, and I can't really see the thinking behind what we've done here instead.
I am not sure that I understand your point here. If it is about the captions being centred that is becouse IMO they are more readable and more aesthetically pleasing that way with no down side I can see and no policy nor MoS reason to prevent it. If you meant something else, apologies, I am having a slow brain week; perhaps if you repeated using smaller words.
It took me a while to realise that it was centre alignment: there's a little graphic that gets added to them, which means that in two-line captions, the first line looks as if it's left-aligned and the second looks like it's right-aligned. I think this falls under the heading of something that each of us would do differently, but you're welcome to do it your way just as I would do it my way. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaving Nantes John secured Champtoceaux: I know the usual style here is to avoid commas with introductory clauses, but here I think there's a strong argument for one: as written, it sounds as if "Nantes John" is a place, or "Leaving Nantes John" a person. Generally speaking, commas are used after participle clauses in most varieties of English (I realise I've just inadvertently provided an example).
I have rephrased to avoid that unhappy commaisation.
Much better in several ways. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a brief, fumbled and pallid defence: I can work out what a fumbled defence (fumbling?) is, but what does pallid mean in this context? MOS:IDIOM applies, I think.
pallid: "Appearing weak, pale or wan". I would be happy to go with 'brief and fumbled' if you don't like pallid.
I think you can only really get away with "weak" in that sense for a person: at the very least, this is metaphorical language, and the MoS would advise something concrete (or just cutting that word) instead. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked to "weak and fumbled".
  • Saint-Aubin-du-Cormier, a strong fortification defending the approach to Rennes from Paris, and the walled town of Dinan followed suit: given that there's a glossing clause on Saint-Aubin but not on Dinan, this would be clearer if the two were swapped around, or as Saint-Aubin-du-Cormier, a strong fortification defending the approach to Rennes from Paris, followed suit, as did the walled town of Dinan (I assume they're written in this order because they fell in this order?)
Done. (Yes.)
De-hyphened.
  • Originally due to expire on 24 June 1341 it was extended: again, I think we really need a comma here after 1341.
I disagree.
Very well, but in that case, can I suggest a more straightforward syntax: e.g. The truce was originally due to expire on 24 June 1341, but was extended on 9 June to 29 August, and on 10 August to 14 September. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented.
  • it was extended to 29 August on 9 June, and to 14 September on 10 August: I think this would be clearer if the decision dates came before the deadline dates.
Done.
  • Attending on Philip VI it became clear that he had lost the French King's confidence: a few things here. We've got a dangling participle clause at the start, which should be reworked. Secondly, "king" should decap in this context per MOS:PEOPLETITLES ("French King" isn't a formal title that acts as a replacement for someone's name; it's a description of that person).
Dangly thing reworked. What has "formal" got to do with anything? Per MOS:JOBTITLE it is "a title [...] used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name" and so should be capitalised.
  • Philip found the idea of bringing the traditionally semi-autonomous province more firmly under royal control attractive: a long gap between these two parts of the compound verb: not great for readability. Any possibility of working?
Of course. Does "the idea of bringing the traditionally semi-autonomous province more firmly under royal control was attractive to Philip" work for you?
It does. Would it be too far to go even more straightforward: "Philip decided to bring..." or similar? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone with my version. I am not wedded to that wording, but feel that your suggestion puts things a bit strongly.
  • The English army was disbanded for the winter and the fleet paid off. No sooner was this done than representatives: MOS:CLICHE, I think -- presumably it wasn't literally a matter of minutes.
Well now. With no news from Brittany the English royal Council approved a truce extension on or about the 2 September and started standing down the military. On 12 September, before messengers had reached all of the ships and men (ORing, probably before they were sent in many cases), the Breton emissaries spoke to Edward. On the same day the plenipotentiaries near Calais agreed the fine print and signed the binding extension. Edward promptly trouted himself and tried to have it both ways. (Philip of course was free to use troops as he wished within the borders of France.) So it wasn't so much "no sooner" as even before that. The extent to which some of the stand down was delayed deliberately until there was confirmation that the French had signed is unclear. I don't think the article makes too bad a fist of boiling this (which of course I have already boiled down for you) to summary style. That said, there must be close to an infinity of ways of expressing this, would you like me to try another one?
If I've got it right: would it be accurate to say something like "The fleet was paid off and the army disbanded; while it was still demobilising, messengers arrived..."? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Edward and his council agreed that the English army would be disbanded for the winter and the fleet paid off; while this was taking place representatives arrived from John announcing ..." Does that work?
  • Strategically Edward saw the chance to set up a ruler in Brittainy at least partially under his control which would greatly aid England's naval war as well as give a ready entry to France for English armies.: this one needs a look for clarity.
A little more detail added to give "Strategically Edward saw the chance to set up a ruler in Brittainy at least partially under his control; this could provide access to Breton ports which would greatly aid England's naval war as well as give ready entry to France for English armies."
  • Amaury de Clisson: the general practice in this article seems to be to Anglicise all names and titles: so Charles of Blois rather than Charles de Blois. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of that decision (which is within the writer's discretion, in my view), this is an apparent exception. Perhaps related: in her article, "Jeanne of Flanders" is named "Joanna of Flanders": is that discrepancy intentional?
Nope, I slipped with Amaury, corrected. I am not helped by the sources - I have just checked the four I used most, all are inconsistent, and inconsistent between each other. As this is the English language Wikipedia I usually go for the English spelling in articles if the sources permit it.
Isn't "Joanna" (or Joan) the English spelling, rather than "Jeanne" (just as we've used "John", not "Jean")? Looking around on Google Books, I've noticed a few going for e.g. "John de Montfort", which just seems silly, so I'm grateful for your much more sensible approach here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, changed to Joanna throughout. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a 7,000-strong army together with a strong force: suggest fixing the repetition here.
That was sloppy of me. I can tell that it was 18 months since I was last at FAC. To lose it I have rewritten the first sentence and a bit of the section. [2]
  • Jeanne of Flanders was in Rennes, with her children, the duchy's treasury and a strong garrison when news of the fall of Nantes arrived: comma needed after garrison, as we have preceding commas in the list: as written, it is implied that she only had the garrison at the moment that the news arrived.
Added.
  • She acted rapidly, decisively and aggressively: is this bit of telling doing anything that the showing in the following sentence doesn't do better?
IMO, yes. It took Philip five months to send an army west against Brittany; John of Normandy two days to move a few men three miles to rescue Charles when he (Normandy) had overwhelming force. The contrast seems worth commenting on. And the showing sentences give no idea of how rapidly, decisively or aggressively they were carried out.
That's true, at least for rapidly, but it would still be better (in my view) to make it concrete: can we give a timeframe here, for example? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly not. In Brittany vagueness rules for about 9 months after the fall of Nantes. (The primary sources are a shambles until Northampton arrives at Brest.) Note the tweaking of this below - I pinged you in. Rereading the sources, I could lose "rapidly" now without feeling I am not capturing them. Would that be your preference?
The wording has been changed per the discussion below.
  • battle of Auray: capitalise Battle.
Done. But it will get reverted on the grounds that most sources don't. (Eg [3].)
Looking at the actual results on Google Books and filtering by C21st results gives the opposite impression: most do capitalise. There is however a large series of (pulp?) historical novels by G. A. Henty that have recent reprints but don't capitalise: I wonder if they're contaminating the ngrams sample? At any rate, the overwhelming practice in good sources is that "Battle of X" is capitalised when it refers to a discrete, recognisable battle as a proper noun. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is not. This was thrashed out at some length at MilHist and the the old curmudgeons - among whom I definitely number myself - had to be bludgeoned with data and examples. But this is a side discussion, not least because capitalising battle is my personal preference and because I have already done so in this article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks: I'll take that under advisement for the future (don't suppose you remember where that discussion was?) UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will be buried in the archives. If you could nudge me once I have your and Jens reviews doone I will have a search.
  • recognising John of Montfort's son as duke of Brittainy: typo in Brittany, and capital needed on Duke.
Both changed, although IMO "Duke of Brittany" does not comply with MOS:OFFICE: the first example there is Mitterrand was the French president.
  • Why is the location of the war given as "Province of Brittany" but linked to "Duchy of Brittany"?
It seemed more helpful to a reader than linking to Brittany where they need to scroll down a long way to find not a lot of information and "Main article: Duchy of Brittany".
Sorry -- what I don't understand is why the text says "Province" rather than "Duchy". Are you trying to avoid "Duchy" as a geographic rather than legal/political term? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I may be being too clever for my own good, so simplified to just Brittany. More reader friendly I think
  • Including a "result" in the infobox implies that the war finished: per the guidance on infoboxes (I forget exactly which bit of it), if we can't fill a parameter in a concise way that needs no further explanation, we should omit it.
The article is not about the war, it is about the war in 1341. I think you are looking for Template:Infobox military conflict, possibly "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say ..."
This may solve itself with the article title change, assuming that the infobox title also changes to "Events of..." -- in this case, the infobox will (correctly) say that the events of 1341 in the Breton Civil War had no conclusive result. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was my next position, more or less. I think we agree on this. And apologies for how long it is taking to get my responses up: I have taken on a bit much on Wikipedia, have had a couple of minor RL events, and am finding some of your, and others, comments thought provoking.

I think that's my lot for now. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UC and many thanks for your input on thiis. I think I have finally responded to all of your comments. And had subsequent discussions around several. I will pick away at the rest of your replies and would be grateful if you could let me know when you have managed to look at all of my initial responses - obviously there is no rush on that. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got to everything except Sumption, which requires me to do a bit of reading. Generally speaking, where you've made a change, it's solved the issue as far as I'm concerned. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I throw in another very nit-picky one: the short description is Start of the War of the Breton Succession, which implies (to me at least) that the "Breton Civil War" and the "War of the Breton Succession" are two different things. We generally say that we should refer to an individual thing in a consistent way throughout an article, and I think that applies here. When the name change comes through, it would probably be better set to "none" anyway? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good spot. Short descriptions are one of my blind spots. Changed. There were a couple of minor edits due to the article being a DYK today. I'll check through them tomorrow when things are stable again. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi UC and apologies for the lull. I have added a couple of responses above and have now covered all of your points I think. There have also been a few copy edits - partly me rereading and tidying up, partly due to the article recently having been a DYK. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I haven't ben able to get to the article, but it's already clear enough that the article meets the FA standards. I think the change of name is still required, for the reasons discussed above, but agree that this should be done after promotion. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]
  • "his younger half brother, John of Montfort" – the OED hyphenates "half-brother", as does Chambers.
Wiktionary prefers half brother, giving half-brother as an alternative spelling. But hyphenated.
  • "well connected and militarily orientated" – according to the current edition of Fowler the verb "orientate" is "a pointless longer variant of "orient".
Hmm, rendered more pointful.
  • "an alternate plan – this use of "alternate" as an adjective is an Americanism. The English form is "alternative".
You are quite right. Changed. (I read too much SF.)
  • "there was only fighting at Brest – I'm not one of those pedantic souls who always insist on the logical placing of "only" rather than a more natural one, but here I really do think "there was fighting only at Brest" or "only at Brest was there fighting" would be better.
Tim, I rarely argue argue with you on this sort of thing, but really really? (!)
I don't in the least press the point. I thought, and think, it would be clearer my way, but I can't in conscience object to yours. Tim riley talk 20:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Requests for assistance from Charles of Blois were ignored" – ambiguous: were these requests from Charles for assistance or requests from someone else for assistance from Charles?
Clarified.
  • "deliberations were liable to be long drawn out" – I have quoted before (will whoever shouted "ad nauseam" kindly leave the room?) the dictum "If you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad", and so I merely mention that the OED uses two hyphens for "long-drawn-out".
I am with you and the OED there. Apologies.
  • "regarding John recognising Edward as king of France in exchange for Edward recognising John's claim" – would it be insufferably pedantic to point out that both "recognising"s here are gerunds – verbs in noun form – and so they should be "John's recognising" and "Edward's recognising"? Probably, but I'm doing it anyway.
A twofer, gerund-hog day.
  • "in the event of Philip deciding in favour of Charles" – another gerund in need of a possessive.
Haven't we been here before?
  • "Instead he commenced planning" – I know battles traditionally commence, but I think planning can simply be begun or started. In this context "commenced" is a touch genteel and refained.
Philip was a very genteel king. Changed to 'began'.
  • "allocated £10,000 for military expenditure" – is it even faintly practicable to give some idea of the modern equivalent of that sum?
Not in my opinion. My response to Matarisvan raising much the same comment two weeks ago was "I used to be an enthusiast, but these days I think it actively misleads a reader. So the £30,000 will come out as a bit under £40,000,000 today. Say the cost of a large luxury yacht or three main battle tanks. But that's not it. We are talking about the total government income of a medium-sized nation state and that just doesn't translate (IMO) when you run it through an inflation converter."
I was vaguely wondering about a comparison of the £10,000 with the annual royal income, if known, which I daresay it isn't. I'm wholly content to leave this in your hands for action or inaction as you think fit. Tim riley talk 20:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, I read past your comment far too quickly and thank you for making me come back to it. Of course I can do that. Footnote added. If the MoS permitted, I would dedicate it to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid! Thank you, dear boy: it puts the sum of money in context comprehensively. Bravo! Tim riley talk 21:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the deaths of many of large force" – missing a word, by the look of it
Oops. Inserted.
  • "The Treaty of Guérande, recognising John of Montfort's son as duke of Brittainy (Brittany, presumably) was agreed in 1365. John of Montfort died in 1345, still a prisoner in Paris – given the 20-year lurch backwards between the two sentences I wonder if "died" might be better as "had died".
It is ugly. Hmm. Moved up the paragraph into chronological order. (Better?)
Much, me judice. Tim riley talk 20:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Tim riley talk 13:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, many thanks, much appreciated. Changes here. You may be pleased to hear that the next is coming down the track - a proper lance and longbow affair. (It ends "Livingstone and Witzel suggest it is difficult to take lessons from the battle as "Charles ... was a military incompetent". However, Sumption states that the French behaved in the same wrong-headed way they usually did in battles of the 1340s.") Mind it has yet to survive SN reviewing it at GAN, pray for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I shall remember you in my orisons and will look forward to seeing the new piece at FAC in due course. Meanwhile after a final read-through of this one I am very happy to support its elevation to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria and has been a pleasure to review. Tim riley talk 20:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Borsoka

[edit]
  • ..., while a part of the Kingdom of France for most purposes, was in many ways an independent principality. I think the sentence is unclear and does not reflect what the cited author, Sumption says. For instance, he says, "By 1328, the French Crown exercised practically no direct jurisdiction in Brittany". I would say that the dukes of Britanny were the French kings' vassals but ruled their duchy as independent monarchs, or something similar.
Would 'Brittany was a province of France but while the dukes of Brittany were vassals of the French kings they governed the duchy as independent rulers' work?
  • Yes.
Thanks. Done. Cited to Sumption and Wagner.
  • Complicating the legal situation – which was unprecedented in Breton law – John III seems to have on separate occasions formally promised the succession to both John of Montfort and Charles of Blois. I would explain the situation with more details in a sentence, taking into account that the legal dispute is the core of the civil war.
I am seriously loath to put (much) more detail into this. I strongly suspect that putting additional detail in will cause less rather than more understanding. The dynastic origins of the war are background to this article and I am unsure that more the details there, and I assume in the background of every other article on the war, is appropriate. What is needed is a separate article.
  • Still, I would clarify at least in a footnote that Joan of Penthievre was the sole daughter of the Duke's full-brother, whereas Montfort was their half-brother.
Fair enough. I'll do that.
Actually, part of this, John of Montfort being a half brother, is already in the main article; I have added without I hope over-disrupting the flow, that "Joan was the only child of John III's younger brother". What do you think?
  • ... it was widely accepted within Brittany that Charles would inherit. I think this was not the case: the commoners mainly supported John, and Charles was supported by the clergy and aristocracy, according to Sumption.
Indeed. But I am not discussing who supported who, but who expected who to prevail; a different matter. To further quote Sumption "He [Philip] had certainly assumed like everyone else that Brittany would fall to Charles of Blois". Page 377 of the 1999 paperback.
I am not sure that the article clarifies who supported whom in Brittany, although it is about a civil war.
The sources are not that clear. Many of their divisions would require explaining (eg Breton speaking v French speaking), none of them were absolute, and almost all of them varied over time. I don't see that trying to communicate some of this is going to much help a reader, not least because it had very little effect on actual events.
I have added a bit to Background, [4] Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...encouraged by his wife, Jeanne of Flanders... I would write some words about this remarkable woman. Sumption says that "There is no reason to doubt the assertion of a well-informed chronicler that she was the principal author of her husband's plans in the summer of 1341".
I would like to. UndercoverClassicist, would you have any objections in principle to a sentence or so of background?
Not at all: the objection was to the unqualified/unexplained adjective "ambitious" rather than, in principle, introducing her. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Done.
Can I raise an NPOV query on Modern historians ... describe her as heroic? (I'm taking as read that the cited sources actually say "modern historians describe..." or similar, rather than describing her with these adjectives). That's very high praise: I can't think of any other historical figure where we would be so unreservedly positive, rather than e.g. "Mandela is widely viewed as a hero in South Africa for his efforts against Apartheid" or "Lincoln is consistently ranked as one of the best US presidents", or "Mother Theresa is widely used as an exemplar of selflessness and moral behaviour". UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could put quote marks round "heroic", "energetic", "courage" and "stern realism" and attribute in line if that would help? If you are aware of any less flattering descriptions - I am afraid I am not - I would be delighted to use them to temper the praise. Obviously I could dial back the "very high praise" easily enough, but would that not fall foul of NPOV itself, by not accurately conveying the consensus of the HQ RSs?
Is it really the consensus of academic historians that she should be seen as a heroine? Again, I can't think of any historical figure for whom that's true: the best that the Joans of Arc of this world normally get is an acknowledgement that they were seen as heroic in their time, or have inspired others. Would you mind quoting some of the sources so that I have an idea of what we're working with here? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I could, they are cited, but if you are that twitchy, I have no particular desire to defend their choice of words. Plan B would be to replace this with, say, 'Modern historians consider her to have been an energetic and effective leader, and she acted rapidly, decisively and aggressively. She sent the treasury west to Brest, recalled the field army and took command herself ...' which would also fit better into the flow of the narrative. Would that suit?
I'd be much happier with that -- the adjectives are much closer to objective/verifiable observations. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks UndercoverClassicist, and it partially addresses your telling/showing point I hope. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the map also show Brest and Dinan?
Done.
  • I would clarify that Angers is in Anjou.
Have gone with "80 kilometres (50 mi) east of the Brittany border" as more directly helpful to the reader.
  • Do we know why the minders were appointed? Is "minder" the best term?
John of Normandy was 18 and it was his first command. The source has "but he was straitly supervised by [list of names]"; "minder" seems to cover this but I would be happy to consider any alternative you might suggest.
  • I would make it clear that he was 18 in the text. In this case, all will understand the context of the minders' appointment.
Apologies, either the wrong John, a faulty memory or poor mental arithmetic - he was 22. Sumption more or less says it because Philip was nervous and risk averse ("this cautious, troubled man.") Maybe "although Philip, nervous and half-hearted about resorting to armed force, allocated minders to oversee him and issued strict instructions"?
I would work for me.
Done.
  • Do we need a link to "siege"?
IMO, no. Removed. But we both know that someone is going to relink it before the end of the year.
  • ...was almost captured... Who?
Clarified.
  • John of Montfort had personally surrendered to John of Normandy. Repetition.
Rewritten.
  • ...was agreed in 1365 By whom?
Added.
There is not one in the book, I own a paper copy, nor on World Cat.
Two nominations and two reviews from you, thank you Borsoka. All of your comments are addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I am envious of this article. :) I have been planning to complete articles about medieval Breton history. I do not know why but Bretagne fascinates me. Borsoka (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been meaning to get round to the BCW for more than five years. But kept telling myself to focus on the main HYW. But after 18 months away from FAC the BCW seemed different enough to be fresh, but familiar enough to not be too much of a challenge. I have battle of Morlaix at GAN at the moment, with another couple I have done some work on and a half dozen I want to tackle over the next few months in my TO Do Box. And am trying not to get distracted by the articles about the wars of Henry IV I want to write.
We could collaborate on an article or two. Or split them between us?
Thank you for your magnanimous offer. For the time being, I am concentrating on reviews and some aspects of the history of the crusader states. Later, I would like to improve articles about individual Briton dukes. Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds interesting. I imagine Sumption could provide a sound framework for several. Give me a shout if you are hunting for a source, or what a second opinion on some text, or find one where you think collaboration might be appropriate. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Lead): ...Joan's claim was through her husband,... Was it?
No, of course it wasn't. Thank you. A recently requested addition where I clearly didn't engage my brain sufficiently. '...Joan's claim was exercised through her husband,...'?
Done.
  • (Lead): ...Charles was recognised... By whom?
The Parlement of Paris, which then begs several further questions and is already, IMO, too much detail for the lead.
  • (Lead): ... frequently as a part of the Hundred Years' War Perhaps "in parallel with the HYW"?
Is that not getting a tad OR? Unless you have a source?

Borsoka (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka and apologies for the hiatus. Your remaining points now addressed. There have also been a few copy edits - partly me rereading and tidying up, partly due to the article recently having been a DYK. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Seems like we are using major historians as a source, and I've seen these publishers already, but I notice a lack of French or Breton sources. Are the ISBN and ISSN on "Rogers, Clifford (2004). "The Bergerac Campaign (1345) and the Generalship of Henry of Lancaster". Journal of Medieval Military History. II. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press: 89–110. ISBN 978-1-84383-040-5. ISSN 0961-7582." correct? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rogers: oh, nice spot. I am staring at the title page wondering how that happened. You are probably ahead of me. The article was later collected into a book with those ISSN and ISBNs. But I actually used the Journal of Medieval Military History. Things should match now and apologies for whatever went wrong.
  • French and Breton: I can find nothing of any use in Breton. Several perfectly passable general histories in French - of the HYW or of Philip VI. Few as good as the English language sources, none better and none that I am aware of containing notable information not in the English sources. So, per WP:NOENG ("English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance"), I haven't used any.
Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for the swift and incredibly thorough review. My two responses are above, let me know if they still leave queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that you get an article with WP:UNDUE weight being given to the English viewpoint if you use only English sources. Not all good sources are translated and that even researchers tend to focus more on their own/friendly countries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

[edit]
  • Brittany was a province of France but while the dukes of Brittany were vassals of the French kings they governed the duchy as independent rulers something explanatory is missing between "vassals of the French kings they governed". Vassals should be linked.
Vassal: it should, it is now, in both the lead and the main article.
Missing. Seems fine to me, and UC and Borsoka both ok'ed it before I swapped it in. A little reluctantly I have added a comma after "France". Does that help?
  • What are the "great men" of Brittany
I think it's fairly self explanatory. (And if a reader is a little vague I don't think it is going to interrupt the flow of their reading nor distract from their understanding of the situation.)
  • whereby he sided with French vassals of Philip in their disagreements with him. "whereby --> after which
I have gone with "by which".
Your comments all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators

[edit]

Hi @FAC coordinators: as this is 16 days in and has five supports, image and (I think) source review passes could I have permission to nominate a second article? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Breton_Civil_War,_1341/archive1&oldid=1264563746"