Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Winchelsea

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.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Winchelsea

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

One from my archives. An interesting little episode - well, I think so - which may be up to A claas standard. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kges1901

I would suggest mentioning that the battle was part of the Hundred Years' War in the first sentence, something like 'a naval battle that took place on 29 August 1350 during the hundred years war between England and France' since that is more important for the lede than the total number of ships involved, which should be the second sentence.

Done.

In background, link Portsmouth, Southampton, Hastings and Plymouth, and perhaps mention the article English Channel naval campaign, 1338–1339 which covers the early part of the war?

Done.

I would suggest describing Edward III consistently as Edward III to be consistent rather than simply as 'The King'

Done.

In the battle section, link valet de chambre

Done.

peril of La Salle du Roi, - rephrase as near capture of La Salle du Roi

Done.

You mention how the name battle of Winchelsea was applied, but not the origins of calling it the battle of Les Espagnols sur Mer. Is the latter the French name for the battle or used by French chroniclers?

No. Everyone wrote, and largely spoke, French - the language of the court. It was another generation before Chaucer scandalised society by writing extensively in English. ORing, different chroniclers gave it different names and Wincelsea is the one which has stuck. There may have been a national bias, as Wincelsea won't have meant much outside of England, but there is no mention of this in the sources.

Link Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356 and Treaty of Bretigny in aftermath

Done.

The attribution to Britannica template is still used, but is it necessary if there are no longer sections of text copied verbatim from the article? If the latter, the template is no longer necessary ::Done. Kges1901 (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.

You might want to readd Hanney as a regular citation, though, because you've still cited the Britannica entry inline. Kges1901 (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I was having a bad day. Done.

Hi Kges1901, thanks for that. I have gone with all of your suggestions. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kges1901, how embarrassing. I'm glad that one of us is awake. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF

If I haven't gotten around to this by Saturday, please ping me. Hog Farm _Talk 02:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I read through it and didn't find anything problematic for A-Class. Good work as always. Hog Farm _Talk 02:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

Solid article as I would expect, just minor issues.

on 24 May 1337 Philip's Great Council in Paris: The year is established in the previous so its usage here could be dropped.

Oops. Done.

again throwing the crews overboard.: this is first mention of crews being thrown overboard. Perhaps: " again murdering the crews, by throwing them overboard."

Good point. Done.

so heavily as to spring English ship's timbers.: missing word I think "so heavily as to spring the English ship's timbers."

Inserted.

Grammar is not a particularly strong suit of mine, but should "men at arms" be "men-at-arms"?

It certainly should - sloppy of me.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good points Zawed, thanks for that. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting. Zawed (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Made some minor changes (adding location/identifiers, and standardizing publisher spelling)
Harris, Robin (1994); WorldCat seems split between giving a location of Woodbridge, Suffolk, and London, probably a result of the Royal Historical Society being based in London; either should be fine; defer to whatever copy of the book you used if a physical book otherwise keep it as it is.

Fixed.

Prestwich, M. (13 September 2007) is there a particular reason for the inclusion of the day and month?

No, removed.

@Gog the Mild: that is all. Passes source review, nice job. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iazyges, sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

All images have appropriate licence tags. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

Will take this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the French were well aware of this. perhaps something the French were well aware of. for flow?

I prefer it how it is, for clarity and emphasis. If it really upsets you I could break it into two sentences? Although that would seem a little clunky to me.

No, I think it is better as is than in two sentences, I agree it would be more clunky,

firing from their elevated positions as the English closed perhaps firing from their elevated positions as the English closed in or firing from their elevated positions as the English closed the distance

Why? Wiktionary has one meaning of "close" as "To make (e.g. a gap) smaller", which is the sense used here.

I think that might be a more British meaning than American, and the different terms make it more universal; it's not a huge issue.

The English are said to have captured between 14 and 26 of the enemy and might be helpful to include "ships", such as The English are said to have captured between 14 and 26 of the enemy ships and

Good point. Done.

@Gog the Mild: That is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iazyges, all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Support article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:22, 1 August 2022 (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.