Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Truce of Malestroit/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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 1 July 2025 [1].

Truce of Malestroit

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1342. A new front has opened in Brittany and both sides have their problems during the winter campaign. A truce is hastily agreed, with peace negotiations to follow - personally mediated by the Pope. The French think that the English will now go home and a peace treaty will be agreed. The English, well, read the article. Another in my occasional efforts to balance the blood and gore in most of my output. Recently knocked into shape, GANed, and now offered up for you to grumble about. Have at it! Gog the Mild (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The plaque's {{center}} tag is unclosed
Fixed.

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]
  • "one of Philip's senior advisors" – unexpected Americanism. One might expect the traditional English "advisers".
Whoops.
  • "The fleet was depleted by most of its ships deserting" – gerund time! To be grammatical this should have a possessive apostrophe after "ships" but that would look pretty awful, and I suggest something like "The fleet was depleted when most of its ships deserted"
Ah, they're back! Hmm. Would "The fleet was depleted by the desertion of most of its ships" work?
Perfectly. Tim riley talk 14:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In England the King's Council" – capital C for council? I just mention it and don't press the point.
It's a tricky one. But I am seeing it as the King's Council, rather than a king's council.
Fine with me. Tim riley talk 14:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "large detachments were sent on chevauchees" – chevauchees! Gog's in his heaven, All's right with the world, as Browning nearly has it.
I am happy to spread a little joy in this vale of tears which we mockingly call life.
  • "the French commenced the 50 miles (80 km) journey" – I know, because you've told me, that battles traditionally commence, but I'm blest if I can see why journeys can't just start or begin.
It's a perfectly good word. Did one bite you when you were young? Switched to began.
From Fowler (2015, p. 166): "It is a sound rule to use begin in all ordinary contexts unless start is customary (the engine started straight away; he starts work at 9 a.m.; the game started on time). Commence has more formal associations with law (to commence an action) and procedures, combat (hostilities commenced on 4 August), divine service, and ceremonial ... As a general rule it should be reserved for such contexts." And, for light relief, from Noël Coward: "I just can’t abide the word testicles. It's smug and refined like 'commence' and 'serviette' and 'haemorrhoids'. When in doubt always turn to the good old Anglo-Saxon words. If you have piles, say so!" Tim riley talk 14:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With both sides disinclined to commit to battle negotiations ..." – you and I see eye-to-eye on being sparing with commas, but I think one after "battle" here would help the reader's eye along the line.
I do like the idea of "battle negotiations" but you are correct. Inserted.
  • "all of the English would leave for home" – do we need the "of"?
Nope.
  • "William Bateman, the dean of Lincoln ... the Dean of Clerment" – not sure why one dean is capitalised and the other isn't.
Because the latter "is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office" while the former isn't. Don't look at me like that! That's what the MoS requires.
Gosh! A bit beyond me, but I'm happy as long as you're happy or even happyish. Tim riley talk 14:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. A brilliantly good read, and I look forward to signing on the dotted line for the promotion of this article to join its fellow Gog productions on the Hundred Years' War. Tim riley talk 20:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim, that is most flattering. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dotted line now signed on. Even by the impeccable standards of Gog's Hundred Years' War articles this is outstanding, in my view. Meets all the FA criteria in spades. Tim riley talk 14:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
High praise Tim. After 27 100YW FACs I seem to have got the hang of them. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MSincccc

[edit]
General
  • Could the relevant language template be added to the article?
Added.
Lead
  • "...to negotiate an end the war." → "...to negotiate an end to the war."
Whoops. Done.
  • "There, mediated by Clement,..."→"There, mediated by Pope Clement VI,..."
Good catch. Done.
Background
Smacks of overlink to me, but done.
Breton Civil War
  • As per MOS:ALTCON, "Charles of Blois" should be named here:

A pen and ink drawing of the head and shoulders of a bearded man in early modern style

I disagree. Charles is not a near-random example of a class - as in the first bullet point of ALTCON - but an important personality in the account, so bullet point 2 applies.
Added.
Truce
  • "...with King Philip's oldest son, John, Duke of Normandy, in command."→"...with King Philip's eldest son, John, Duke of Normandy, in command." ("Eldest" is preferred when referring to people, especially within a family.)
  • "Christmas Day (25 December) 1342" → "on Christmas Day 1342"
In a different article UndercoverClassicist commented "Once started, the French advance was rapid; it was Christmas Day: I would include "25 December" per WP:POPE: not everyone will have an instinctive sense of when Christmas Day is, and we wouldn't write e.g. "this happened on Yom Kippur" and expect everyone to know when we mean." I am not an enthusiast, but the MoS would seem to be against us.
  • As per MOS:ALTCON, "Pope Clement VI" should be named here:

a water colour image of the head and shoulders of a man wearing a white papal hat MSincccc (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per the similar point above.
Additional comment (Truce)
  • "the Dean of Clerment"→"the Dean of Clermont"
Done.

It was a pleasure reading through the article. I have made a few minor suggestions above and hope they are helpful. Best regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MSincccc, that is kind of you. It is good of you to run your eagle eyes over my articles so frequently. Some done. I'll wrap the rest up in a bit. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MSincccc. I have, I think, wrapped my head round what you mean re ALTCON and articulated why I have done what I have instead. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. Overall, the article is well-written and of FAC standard. Support. MSincccc (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I think I have reviewed some of these sources already, but "The Three Edwards: War and State in England " is apparently two books with the same title? Otherwise, it looks like the source formatting is consistent and the reviews of the sources are good too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's me - yet again! - confusing Edward the Third and The Three Edwards! Now sorted. Apologies Jo-Jo and thanks for both the prompt review and for picking up my sloppy referencing. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Some of this is starting to feel familiar...

  • A bit of a shame not to have any image in the lead, I think. I wonder whether the Chapel of the Madeline would work -- either the plaque or something like this one, where we could say "this is the place where all of this happened".
Excellent idea. Done.
  • on 19 January 1343 in Malestroit, Brittany with the intention of pausing: comma after Brittany per MOS:GEOCOMMA.
Inserted.
  • The immediate effect was to allow the Flemings to join his cause without technically becoming rebels by disowning their fealty to the French crown: I think the by clause is slightly grammmatically ambiguous (does it modify join his cause or becoming rebels) -- suggest "to join his cause without disavowing ... and therefore without technically ...".
Done.
  • The extent to which Edward may have considered the claim more than a negotiating position is unclear: any reason not to cut may have?
Cut.
  • On 7 September the French army arrived, but Philip held it back to ensure there was no risk of a general battle occurring: what is the word general doing here -- was he happy for part of his army to fight a battle?
Removed.
  • Edward was unable to meet his commitments, the English Crown was bankrupt, and Edward fled the continent in order to avoid his creditors.: the elegant variation of English Crown confuses me a bit: I'm not sure I see a distinction between the Edward who couldn't meet his commitments and the Crown that had no money. I'd suggest picking a lane: perhaps "Edward was bankrupt and unable to meet his commitments; he fled...". I appreciate I may be missing a subtlety here.
If I switched "Crown" to 'treasury' would it be clearer?
It would, but I think I'd still have the same query. Is the distinction because England's wealth didn't, in theory, belong to Edward personally? If so I'd be confused by the walk between the "treasury" having no money and "Edward" having creditors. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is more there being no such thing as a corporate England to have money. Taxes and customs were granted to the Crown, but I prefer to not use that word, nor to get too far into the weeds of Medieval national financing. I simplify but slightly. Hmm. That gives me an idea. Hows about 'The English government was bankrupt, meaning that Edward was unable to meet his commitments and he fled the continent in secret.'?
Yes, that keeps the logical links very clear. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The French King correctly suspected: lc king (I think this came up in the last one).
Done. Although I am not wholly convinced that the "title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office" doesn't apply.
  • but had extreme difficulty in assembling ships: sounds a bit like IKEA. Securing/procuring/obtaining?
You've been doing too much DIY. Used in the sense of "To gather as a group".
Oh, no, I'm completely aware of that meaning, but we've also created an unfortunate double meaning that's easily avoided; I think an alternative verb would be an unmitigated benefit. It certainly sounds like the problem wasn't gathering them (that is, he had them but couldn't bring them together), but actually getting control of them in the first place -- if not, the footnote makes little sense. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I don't suppose you would be amenable to 'persuading the captains to do what they were damn well told'? I have gone with "mustering", which is both happily unambiguous and suitably military.
  • By July Joanna was besieged: I would extend the link on "besieged" to either or both of the preceding words, to be clear that we're not going to an article about sieges in general.
Good point.
  • Note 3 needs a full stop.
Inserted.
  • switched their allegiance to the Montfort cause: not Montfortist (like "the Royalist cause", "the Jacobite cause", etc)?
Corrected.
Thank you. Fixed.
  • the French began the 50 miles (80 km) journey west to the Breton border.: singular mile ("a two-week holiday"). I would hyphenate, even with figures: the convert template has a parameter to do that too.
Done.
  • Edward suspected that everything they saw would be passed on to the French: could be more precisely phrased: he means that they would inform the French about what they saw, not that e.g. his clothing and tableware would be physically handed over to the French.
Rephrased.
  • Foulques of Chanac, bishop of Paris; the Dean of Clermont; Louis of Cerda, prince of Fortuna; Louis of Poitiers, count of Valentinois; and Simon Bucy, president of the Parlement of Paris.: this is a real MOS:PEOPLETITLES workout. Generally, you've capitalised titles like this (see earlier Annibaldo Caetani, Bishop of Frascati–Tusculum; and Pierre Desprès, Bishop of Palestrina–Praeneste), so all should be capitalised (except maybe president) -- on the other hand, the Dean makes it a description, so no capital there.
The MoS states: "They are capitalized only in the following cases: ..." Which of the three following options do you consider to apply in the cases currently in lower case? And the MoS specifically allows a definite article "e.g., the King, not the king (referring to Charles III); the President, not the president (referring to Trump)", so an upper-case D for Dean
Ah -- I'd misread the dean; I thought that was another of Foulques' titles, but the semicolon says otherwise. I think we're in When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description, the corresponding example being Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2016 -- I would read "Louis of Cerda, Prince of Fortuna" as equivalent to "Louis of Cerda, [otherwise known as the] Prince of Fortuna". I'm not sure I'd be too upset if you were to dissent and decapitalise, but I would expect you then to make that consistent with e.g. Caetani and Desprès. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Apologies for the inconsistency and thanks for spotting it. (I think I was so happy to finally turn up the names of the cardinals - in an obscure French source - that I wasn't concentrating.) I don't think we are in exemption three territory, so will go with lower case, which I hope is now consistent.

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Break
[edit]

Let's get some more in:

  • They did not meet face to face, but each group talked to Clement, who conveyed messages between them. The terms of the truce required Clement to be neutral, but everyone involved believed he was pro-French and his behaviour outside the bounds of the conference did nothing to dispel this idea.: everyone involved? There also seems to be a bit of an elephant in this room -- Clement wasn't just pro-French; he was French.
"everyone involved". Seems a fair summary of the source. Would you like me to quote so you can judge?
Nationality was less cut and dried in those days. Perhaps pertinent was his previous role as one of Philip's senior advisers. This is mentioned when he is introduced.
This is true on both counts. Can we go stronger to "understood that he was pro-French" or similar -- that is, be clear that this was a true belief (as we've said earlier). I take the point about nationality being less clear-cut, but he was born with the name Pierre, in a chateau, in Limousin, and his dad had the title of "Lord of Maumont-Rosiers-d'Égletons" -- I can't really see a way he could have been more French! UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The more I dig, the more nuanced it gets. He was never a full-time advisor, and was against the war when Philip was considering it. He may have sworn fealty to Edward for an abbey in Normandy at one point in his career. I want to oblige you, but the sources are cautious. Full of "the English believed that" and "the English blamed" they don't come out and say he was he was partial. There are examples of his arbitrated things in Philip's favour, but prior to the collapse of the talks they are all relatively trivial. I can rearrange the words, but I don't see that I can strengthen his pro-Frenchness.
OK, then we need to look again at In May 1342 Clement VI became pope. He was strongly pro-French and had previously been one of Philip's senior advisers further up. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was meant to include all mentions of Clement/Pierre. I looked at that. I have looked at it again. It seems a reasonable summary of the sources. If I were to change anything it would be to remove "strongly". But I assume you wouldn't like that. If you would like Clement's intro to say something different, could you tell me what and why and I'll see what I can do. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm understanding: you seem to be saying that we should call him "strongly pro-French" as a matter of fact on first mention, because that's what the sources say, but we can't call him "strongly pro-French" as a matter of fact when we talk about the conference, because the sources don't support that? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was mutual. No problem. I dislike repeating myself in articles, so I didn't describe his attitude again, but what was generally thought of him. But if you think it is better to replace this by a more general description, then tweaked to "The terms of the truce required Clement to be neutral, but his behaviour outside the bounds of the conference was generally supportive of the French and the English were deeply distrustful of him." Does that work for you?
I like that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we contextualise the portrait of Clement -- I think it's contemporary, for example; is there any chance it's from life?
It's from the Chapel of Saint-Martial in the Popes' Palace in Avignon. The work was commissioned by Clement while he was pope and finished during his life, so we can be fairly certain that the painter(s) had seen Clement close up. But I cannot find anything anywhere flatly stating this, never mind if he posed for the image. IMO he almost certainly did, but that's OR. [UC: wonky link removed], for example, goes into great detail, but not on the things we want it to.
I think there's still some worthy context there, personally -- after all, we put a basic outline on the Charles of Blois portrait. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • After four rounds of mediation Clement handed over the role of intermediary to a pair of cardinals: I assume we don't know who they were?
'Fraid not, despite much hunting. (Including through the French sources - in an attempt to find something to keep Jo-Jo happy.)
  • Several suggestions were put to the English delegation by which either England generally or Edward personally gave up the claim to Aquitaine in exchange for territorial compensation elsewhere: would give up, as these were hypotheticals.
Done.
  • Worth saying that Henry of Grosmont was Duke of Lancaster?
Ok.
  • on the orders of the French King was arrested and executed: the French king. Worth saying that the arrest was for treason?
Ok.
  • burnt a path of destruction: I think MOS:CLICHE applies.
Tweaked to cleve a little more closely to the source.
  • originally due to expire on 7 July 1348 it was repeatedly extended: I know I'm more comma-happy than you, but I think we really need one after 1348 here for the fronted adverbial phrase.
Not IMO, but added anyway.
  • I would pull the link on "full-scale war" to cover "reverted to" as well.
Done.
  • Note 1: By English common law, the crown was required: capitalise Crown, and perhaps link "common law"?
Done.
  • The giant caption on the plaque is actually still a sentence fragment, so MOS:CAPFRAG applies. I'd consider reworking it so that it does end in a complete sentence, and therefore a full stop.
Done.
  • Brittanica. Encyclopædia Britannica (in the Charles citation): one of these spellings isn't right.
A coin has been tossed.
  • English and War at Sea, c. 1200-c. l500 (in Friel): I think that's an L in front of 1500.
Eagle eyed. Thank you.
  • Fowler 1969 -- why ISBN and OCLC?
Belt and braces? OCLC scrapped.
  • Bove and Biget -- dash in title.
Fixed
  • Does Mortimer's biography meet the HQ part of HQRS -- how scholarly vs popular is it?
Well, he's a prize-winning fellow of the Royal Historical Society and it's published by Pimlico. I have a paper copy and found it accessible and with a PoV to push - the former being more common than the latter in my experience. It didn't suffer from my reading Ormrod straight afterwards. I could pick at several things, but not at whether it is HQ.
  • Spaces after Rodger's initials (I still need to read his stuff!)
I am getting his third and final volume for my birthday in a week. I envisage being off Wikipedia for a while.
  • Williamson is a very old source, only used in a multi-cite. Is it supporting anything that can't be found elsewhere?
I like Williamson. He is the source for "By English common law, the crown was required to compensate the owners of ships impressed into service". Substituted and the note rephrased.
  • Fryde et al -- personally, I would spell out all the authors in the biblio, if not in the citation (I think the SFN automatically abbreviates very long lists into et al). This would be of more help to readers trying to find the book, though admittedly they almost certainly have enough to do so anyway.
I do spell them out. But then use a parameter to force et al after the first because there is a regular reviewer who insists on it. Parameter removed and fingers crossed.
Responses completed I think. I'll have a look at your come backs now. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Afternoon UC and thanks for once again wading though my messy prose. I have now, I think, addressed all of your comebacks and over to you. (PS I liked Pro Plancio: as soon as I saw the hook I knew it had to be one of yours.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's everything: I'll put a support in, though it's not impossible that something trivial will crop up when I give it another look. Very kind of you about the Pro Plancio, as well. I'm not sure anyone has ever been quite so complimentary about the speech itself. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I should hope not: self serving tosh. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Good afternoon all. As this has three supports plus source and image reviews, and has now been open for three weeks, could I have permission to nominate a second? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing FrB.TG (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Will review this shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 23 June 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/Truce_of_Malestroit/archive1&oldid=1298261228"