Talk:Siege of Guînes (1352)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Siege of Guines in 1352 reignited the Hundred Years' War after six years of uneasy truce? Source: Sumption, Jonathon (1999). Trial by Fire. The Hundred Years' War. II. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 978-0571138968; pp. 89–90

• Reviewed: Sputnik 99

Created by Gog the Mild (talk). Self-nominated at 11:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC).

• Hi Gog, Article is: New enough, long enough, reasonably well written, neutral, referenced to reliable sources. Hook is fine, AGF on offline sourcing. Mightn't it read better as "the 1352 Siege of Guines"? QPQ has been done. However, article has several uncited paras and one {{cn}} tag that need to be resolved. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Eddie891, that's me rushing to nominate while the work is still in progress. (I have forgotten in the past and timed out.) The cn was me reminding myself to look up the source this morning; I didn't expect a reviewer to be so on the ball. Now fully cited. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

: Now is suitably referenced, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Link correct?

I've linked this article to Château de Guînes, but not sure if it's correct.

• ...the castle was captured by the English in 1352 by an English force led by the valet John of Doncaster.

Hanberke (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hanberke: - I have tweaked chateau article to reflect the French siege after English capture. Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Good link Hanberke, thanks. Nice image there too. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hatnote

Are the articles redlinked in the hatnote expected imminently, or should the hatnote be tweaked or removed before the page receives DYK attention? Certes (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Certes, it seems not, and so removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Guines (1352)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 15:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Initial thoughts that don't really come under the GACR

• First and most obvious thought is, why isn't this at Siege of Guînes (1352), given our encyclopaedia page for the commune is at Guînes?

No idea. I never pay attention to titles. (Unlike some people!.) I will change it as soon as this GAN is over.

• I'm not really keen on the coat of arms next to Geoffrey de Charny's name in the infobox, it doesn't really convey any useful information, and being completely honest, it isn't really clear what information it is conveying unless you already know that information. This is just my opinion though, and not part of any GA requirements.

Gone.

• Can you flip "Saint-Omer" in the map to show on the left of the dot, so it doesn't go over the border; this would make it easier to read.

Sure.

References

• Is "Edward's army laid siege to the port in September 1346. With French finances and morale at a low ebb after Crécy, Philip failed to relieve the town, and the starving defenders surrendered on 3 August 1347." really split between pages 144–147, 182–183 and 204–205 in Burne 1999? Seems a lot of pages!

Well, yes and no. Some were arguably the wrong pages. I have boiled it down to Jaques for a summary and Burne for a chapter length treatment. Actually more pages, but it looks more coherent.

• "Ayloffe, Joeseph (1773)" is that spelling of Joseph a typo?

Cough. Yes.

• Presumably "Kaeuper, Richard (2013)" is the same chap as "Kaeuper, Richard W. & Kennedy, Elspeth (1996)", in which case link him on the 2013 introduction too please.

Link moved.

• Why the need for "Prestwich, M. (2005)" to mention "(published 15 September 2005)"? I'd get rid of it.

Sorry. No idea how that snuck in. Gone.

• I don't understand the need to split the "Wagner, John A. (2006)" source into six different references: surely having them all in one would be more intuitive for the reader. We are providing page numbers after all.

I really don't care, but it is usual to list references to encyclopedia articles separately. I use Wagner in this way in a dozen or more FAs and it has not been queried.

That's fine. Are the titles for 2006b and 2006c meant to be the same, given they are listed separately, and are about 30 pages apart? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: if you can pick up on this, and remove Tuchman, which doesn't look like it is used anymore, we should be done.

Harrias, d'oh! Done and done. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• All sources appear to be to reliable secondary sources.

Images

• All images are appropriately tagged and captioned, though it is a bit odd that some have the caption centralised, and others don't.

Fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Prose review to follow. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• You're probably not going to be shocked by me saying this, as I know it is a fundamental difference we've had for a while... but I think the background is more detailed than it needs to be to provide suitable context for this siege. (GACR 3b). The following comments on this section are obviously irrelevant if it is heavily cut down.

Well ... no. I have trimmed a bit. Probably not as much as you would like.

• "He then undertook a large-scale raid through Normandy.." Try and get rid of the easter egg link, maybe something like: "He then undertook the Crécy campaign, a large-scale raid through Normandy.."

Done.

• "..intended to bring a temporary halt to the fighting..": As a personal preference, I'd prefer "..intended to bring the fighting to a temporary halt.."

I prefer the original. (Although I struggle to say why.)

• "It was to run for nine months to 7 July 1348.." How about "Initially it ran for nine months to 7 July 1348.."?

But it didn't it was extended after about six months - I would need to look up the details. What may seem odd phrasing is not accidental.

• "Despite the truce being in effect the French commander Geoffrey de Charny hatched a plan to retake Calais by subterfuge.." When did this happen?

Ah, oops. Added.

• "..seems that Doncaster had had the opportunity to examine.." To avoid the slightly awkward "had had" construction, could this be rephrased something similar to "..seems that Doncaster had been able to examine.."

Rephrased. Differently from your suggestion - that sentence was a bit of a mess.

• Wikilink or footnote for "drawn and quartered"?

Added a link.

• "And so the war resumed." This seems a bit 'pop history novel'.

You don't like pop history novels? Removed.

• "The resumption of hostilities caused fighting to flare up in Brittainy.." Typo?

Grr. Fixed.

• "This did not occur, as John was persuaded.." The last John mentioned was John of Doncaster, so while I think it should be obvious who this means, I think it needs to be spelled out.

Replaced with "the French king".

That'll do. I reserve the right to add more, change my mind, or anything else, as it has been a long time since I last did a GA review! Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheers Harrias, good to see one of your too rare appearances, even if it is to torment me over this GAN. Your points all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)