Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Treaty of London/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) 29 March 2025 [1].

First Treaty of London

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is 1359, the Hundred Years' War has been running for 22 years. Things have gone from bad to worse for the French, culminating in the French king being captured at the Battle of Poitiers, where most of the nobility of France were also either killed or captured. Yes, an opportunity to quantify a "king's ransom", and to find out just how badly the French want peace. Signed, or, strictly, sealed, in May, the name of the war is a give away that it came unstuck somewhere. Read on. Another in my occasional series of truces and treaties and a natural follow on to my taking Poitiers to FA three years ago. The primary sources are a little thin - no copy of the final agreement survives - but the secondary sources have done a fine job and I hope that my mining of them has been exhaustive. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I meant to review this at GAN, but I got busy with work; I'll get a review done this weekend. Hog Farm talk 16:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Subsequent negotiations led to the Second Treaty of London in March 1358," - I think you mean March 1359?
Gah! Thank you.
  • "Edward III's eldest son, Edward of Woodstock, known as the Black Prince, " - was Edward known as the Black Prince in his lifetime? Our article on him suggests this was a later development - is that accurate?
Yeah, a Victorian development, but more or less universally used by the HQ RSs. Clarified.
I am always a bit twitchy about over linking, but as I wrote both of those, done.
  • The FAC nomination statement notes that there's no surviving copy of the entire treaty - is this sourceable enough to be able to note in the article?
Oh, good question. I suspect not, but let me dive into the sources.
Sadly not. From Sumption (1999) and Rogers (2001) in particular it is obvious that he has access to an earlier draft (probably - OR - a copy sent to Paris) but not either of the final sealed versions. But none of the sources that go into any detail specify their sources.

This article is in very good shape; I anticipate supporting once these are resolved. Hog Farm talk 01:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm and thanks for your kind words. Your points above all dealt with. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. As to the Black Prince, it would seem odd to me to refer to "Stonewall Jackson" in a Mexican-American War context, but if it's pretty much universally used in the high-quality RS, then that's another matter. Hog Farm talk 03:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MSincccc

[edit]
Oops! Done.
  • Negotiations
    • Little was agreed until November, when news arrived that the King of Navarre,... Why not "king" as in other places in the article?
MOS:JOBTITLE. Because in this case I am using the term instead of naming him. (And in the others I have already named them and am using the term to specify their office or "job title".)

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Very little from me.

  • "This was £667,000 – the equivalent of the peacetime income of the English Crown for about 20 years" – both here and in the main text, this explanation of the value of the money is just what is wanted – bravo! Another point: the English Crown is capitalised here (which is what I'd do too) but the French crown is lower-cased later. I just mention it and don't press the point.
Standardised.
  • "the only significant French possession still held by the English" – see Plain Words on "significant": This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?
Synonymed.
  • "partially as a result of both countries being financially exhausted" – Fowler (current edition) is not all that prescriptive about "partially" -v- "partly" but I don't see what the longer form offers here that the shorter one doesn't.
Shortened.
  • "the death rate was over 40% in southern England" – I'm not sure what the MoS currently says, but it used to say – and I concur – that in prose it is more pleasing to write "per cent" than to use the % symbol.
This seems to have slipped out of the MoS as it lurches into the 21st century. The main MoS page does include "Write 3%, three percent, or three per cent", "The report stated there was a 45% reduction in transmission rate" and "The resulting font size of any text should not drop below 85% of the page's default font size." The last example is interesting as a use of % rather than per cent within the MoS itself. Notwithstanding, by all means let us strive to be pleasing - per cent'ed.
  • "They partially surrounded the final French attack " – as above, though I'm less certain about it in this case.
I think in this case I shall leave it as is.
  • "Negotiations to both end the war and to agree a ransom" – too many "to's" if worded thus. I suggest either "Negotiations to both end the war and agree a ransom" or, and probably better, I think, "Negotiations both to end the war and to agree a ransom"
I have gone with the first of your suggestions.
  • "one of John's closest advisors ... two of his senior advisors" – why not the traditional BrE "advisers" rather than the Americanism?
Changed. Well spotted.
  • "With regards to a territorial settlement" – better to lose the s at the end of "regards". "With regards to your wife" is a friendly greeting, as opposed to, e.g. "with regard to this matter", which just means "in relation to".
:-)
  • "Edward would give up his and his descendants' claim on the French throne" – claim on or claim to?
I believe "on" to be an acceptable usage, but as you seem to be suggesting a change to 'to' I have done so.
  • "the Dauphin had to leave Paris, he returned in July" – needs a stronger stop than a comma. Incidentally, though this is another point I'm not pressing, I wonder why you lower case "king" in e.g. "Edward III, king of England, and John II, king of France" but capitalise the job title of the dauphin.
If I change this to "the Dauphin had to leave Paris, although he returned in July and laid siege to the city." is a comma sufficient?
Cos in the latter case I am using the title instead of his name.

Here endeth the Heaven-knows-how-many-eth Lesson. The above comments are certainly not of enough importance to prevent me from supporting the elevation of the article to FA. It seems to me to meet every FA criterion. Tim riley talk 20:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly Tim. A support in advance. High praise. Nevertheless you may wish to skim my responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS. No gerunds?
Well if you must have one "partially as a result of both countries being financially exhausted" should strictly have a possessive apostrophe after "countries", but I didn't think it important enough to point out, and it will do very well as it is, me judice. Entirely happy with your replies above. – Tim riley talk 21:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Guyenne_1328-en.svg is tagged for cleanup, and see MOS:COLOUR
Replaced.
  • File:Edward_the_Black_Prince_1430.jpg: source link is dead
The British library website is down as a result of a cyber attack. They are not issuing any dates as to when it may be functioning again.

Source review

[edit]

Source formatting seems consistent. Don't know much about the sources, nor can I access them for the most part, but I notice that they seem to be well-cited or reviewed. Is "The Black Prince at War: The Anatomy of a Chevauchée" a prominent source? Are there French sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Madden: It is, but as she turned her PhD into a book I have switched the citations to that as being easier.
  • French sources: There are, obviously. But nothing I could find of any great depth or saying anything not in the English language sources. Certainly none that come near the forensic analysis of Rogers or Sumption. And there are no language based disagreements or PoVs that I could see. (Although I did find some snippets for the Treaty of Bretigny which is working its way through my to do box.)
  • Checking sources: I possess paper or electronic copies of a high proportion of the sources, so let me know if you would like any pages emailing.
Thanks for looking at this Jo-Jo. Your queries are addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harrias

[edit]
  • "The Anglo-Gascon force devastated a wide swathe of French territory and sacking many French towns on the way.." Change of tense: "devastated" vs "sacking". If "and" was removed and replaced with a comma, it would be fine, I think?
Clumsy of me. Good solution; implemented.
  • On a loosely related note, I'm not keen on the repetition within two lines: "..and sacking many French towns on the way" and then "..and burning French towns on the way". Even if the latter were changed to "along the way" rather than "on the way", I think it would help.
One "on the way" and one "French" deleted. Which doesn't seem to reduce the amount of information conveyed and reads more smoothly.
  • "This was the Battle of Poitiers." It would be nice if there was a smoother way to blend this into the narrative. But damned if I can come up with it, so whatever, I guess.
I have reworded. See what you think.
  • "..fudged the issue of English suzerainty.." Wikilink suzerainty.
Done.
  • "Charles of Navarre, backed by armed force.." The article previously refers to him as "the King of Navarre, known as Charles the Bad" and "including Charles the Bad". I would stick with "Charles the Bad" here, rather than "Charles of Navarre", although I do think enough context has been provided for the reader to follow if you think there is a particular justification for using both.
Nah, it's just me getting confused by different usages in different sources. Standardised.
  • There is inconsistency between "of 4 million écus" and "for three million écu", both in terms of 4 vs three, and "écus" and "écu".
Bleh. Good spot. Fixed.

Overall an excellent article which provides brilliant context for the treaty and well as coverage of the treaty itself. Please ping me when you've responded, as I remain not that active around here at the moment. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias, high praise indeed. Thanks for picking up my sloppy errors. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with all the changes, great work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A request for the coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: This nom has four supports plus image and source reviews. It has also been open for 16 17 18 19 days, so I was wondering if I could have permission to open another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My gratitude for your response to my exorations overflows my capacity to express it. I shall sacrifice a TFA in your honour. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2025 (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/First_Treaty_of_London/archive1&oldid=1282924036"