Jump to content

Talk:Second Treaty of London

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notwithsatnding ("This would restore the ancient territories of Henry II") needs explaining WHY England so-called annexed specific abodes it did

[edit]

For byspell, I knew of English Flanders (Pale of calais) but had't known about Ponthieu too. French Flanders even today would still stand as longer Flemish(Dutch)and English speaking than the invasive French tung. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.169.197 (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 10:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that in 1359 the French King signed a treaty which ceded almost half of France to England?
  • Source: Wagner, John A. (2006). Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Greenwood. ISBN 978-0-313-32736-0. Page 199.
5x expanded by Gog the Mild (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 84 past nominations.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: The recent expansion was recent enough to quality for DYK. The article is long enough and properly sourced throughout. Earwig gives no indication that there are any copyright violations in the article. The hook is cited and interesting. QPQ has also been satisfied. Ultimately, I see no reason not to approve this submission. JJonahJackalope (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
Pass. MSincccc (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Second Treaty of London/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 15:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: MSincccc (talk · contribs) 14:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Image review

  • File:Guyenne 1328-en.svg-The inaccuracies include the absence of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Wight being incorrectly connected to Great Britain, and clumsy shape edges affecting map accuracy.
Replaced.
  • File:Edward the Black Prince 1430.jpg-Source url is dead.
The British library website is down as a result of a cyber attack. The link should re-establish once they get on top of this but they are not issuing any dates as to when it may be functioning again.
Switched to a different version of the image, with better licensing.

MSincccc (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Jean II Le Bon - BnF - Musée du Louvre Peinures RF 2490.jpg-It is missing a US public domain tag.
MSincccc (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Francia1328-Shepherd-Simplificado.svg has an MOS: COLOUR issue.
MSincccc (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Fixed.

Prose

First Treaty of London
  • Little was agreed until November, when news arrived that the King of Navarre, known as Charles the Bad, had escaped from his French prison cell. Could "prison cell in France" be used in place of "French prison cell"?
Done.
  • Could this sentence be used in place of the one currently used in the article-John, correctly believing that Charles would raise an army against the Crown, felt compelled to return to his throne to regain control, while Edward saw this as the best moment to secure a favourable deal.
Done.
Aftermath
Of sourse! Done.
  • As well as John, sixteen of the more senior nobles captured at Poitiers were finally released with the sealing of this treaty. Could "Apart from John" be used in this sentence in place of "As well as John"?

I think "As well" of works slightly better to convey what the new deal was. That's all for the prose. I hope the suggestions have been constructive to you. MSincccc (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MSincccc and thanks for that, I appreciate it. I have, I think, now addressed all of your comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MSincccc, I forgot to say, let me know what if any pages from the sources you would like emailing so you can do your spot checks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source-to-text spot check

  • 1- Done
  • 2- Done
  • 26- Done
  • 37- DoneBy early 1358 the English and French negotiators had agreed that John's personal ransom would be the huge amount of 4 million écus. But the sources state "3 million écus" on page 16 and "4 million écus" on pages 170–171.
The source given, Wagner, states 4 million on page 198. I don't know which sources you are looking at for pages 16 and 170-171, but note, from the article, "The ransom amount was reduced to 3 million écus (£500,000) from the 4 million écus in the previous treaty." It is easy to confuse the two: 4 mn for the First treaty, 3 mn for the Second. (At least one HQ RS does this!)
That concludes the source spot check. Just one more point that needs to be addressed regarding the Images (see above).
  • 48- Done
  • 59- Done

That's all for the source-to-text spot check. MSincccc (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC) Additional comment[reply]

The situation is as FIM says. For example, in the web site's battle of Sluys it says "The English were able to manoeuvre against the French and defeat them in detail, capturing most of their ships. The French lost 16,000–20,000 men. The battle gave the English fleet naval supremacy in the English Channel. However, they were unable to take strategic advantage of this, and their success barely interrupted French raids on English territories and shipping." A direct lift from the last paragraph of the Wikipedia article - which I wrote 3 July 2018. They use this map in Gascon Campaigns, which as you can see in the image details was created by editor Goran tek-en in response to a Wikipedia request. The web site have even copyrighted it to Goran tek-en, which is a bit cheeky. And so on and so on. Having your work ripped off by random web sites is an occupational hazard of being a Wikipedia content creator.
Does that help? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does help. By the way, File:Francia1328-Shepherd-Simplificado.svg has an MOS: COLOUR issue. MSincccc (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know once the aforementioned image’s clarity has been addressed. Nikkimaria made the above suggestion to me. Overall, it is a fine article. @Gog the Mild Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MSincccc. It would indeed be a good thing if a version of that image which complied with MOS:COLOUR were to become available. Sadly I don't think that is likely to happen. Happily - for me and the article - compliance with MOS:Colour is not part of the WP:GACR. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was a suggestion put to me by Nikkimaria—I thought I should make you aware of it. Not that I will insist upon it. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Treaty_of_London&oldid=1281609585"