Talk:Siege of Hennebont (1342)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Hennebont (1342)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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.

---

Nominator: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 14:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: ImaginesTigers (talk · contribs) 15:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Placeholder

Review forthcoming. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 15:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I'm satisfied that the GA criteria are met for this article, but some prose-level feedback, largely around clarity issues. As a disclaimer: I have no familiarity with this historical time period.

That is probably good rather than bad. I suspect that many issues will be caused by my being too close to the period. (I have not yet read the comments below.)

• Reviewer: (Lead) dynastic dispute makes it sound like the two claimants are directly related (i.e., brother and sister) but the following prose suggests they are not related.
  • Reviewer (follow-up): This is made pretty clear immediately in Background. Given the small size of the article, this doesn't cause any issues for me, but I leave it to you prerogative.

• • Nominator response: Um. The claimants were directly related: John (of Montfort} was Joan's uncle. (Or half uncle[?]) As Joan was a woman she was legally incapable of claiming or holding anything in her own right. But she could act as a kind of conduit of the claim to someone with the appropriate qualifications. (A Y chromosome.) Something of a simplification - and the legal situation was slightly different in Brittany to that in France *rolly eyes* - but near enough. So Charles was John's half nephew in law. I could add a footnote, but suspect that it would confuse rather than assist a reader.

• Reviewer: (Lead) the forces of Charles of Blois conducted an unsuccessful siege of Joanna of Montfort's position: was her position a castle, or a township, or a camp in the wild?

• • Nominator response: Ah, good point! Changed to "... an unsuccessful siege of the fortified port of Hennebont, commanded by Joanna of Montfort."

• Reviewer: There is one unused source in the bibliography - Jones (1999).

• • Nominator response: Whoops. The cite somehow got lost from the Aftermath. Now added. Thanks for spotting it.

• Reviewer: No ISBN on Williamson (1944).

• • Nominator response: Well ISBNs didn't exist when the book was published and if one has since been retrospectively added as they often are I have been unable to find it.

• • • A 2nd edition from the 90s got an ISBN, but since that isn't what you have quoted, it would probably be wrong to include it. Here is the ISBN either way: https://isbnsearch.org/isbn/9780198212683

• Reviewer: Philip initially disregarded the situation; then, correctly suspecting that John was negotiating with the English, had Charles declared the rightful heir on 7 September. The second clause (beginning then, correctly) doesn't have a main verb, which makes it not an independent clause (violating the semi-colon). Saving you time: Philip initially disregarded the situation but, suspecting Jon of negotiating with the English, declared Charles the rightful heir on 7 September.

• • Nominator response: Thanks, done.

• Reviewer: bring the traditionally semi-autonomous province: It says earlier that the dukes governed the duchy as independent rulers. I defer to you on this – if they were forced to participate in Philip's war (rather than deciding to) then this explains the discontinuity.

• • Nominator response: Ah, the nuances of "independent", "vassal" and "liege lord" in a given situation during the late Medieval. Good point. "independent" changed to "all but independent", after checking the sources - which is actually a better paraphrase. (Eg 'virtually autonomous'.)

• Reviewer: Map is very useful. Good work
  • Nominator response: Yeah, once you get the hang of them they're not too tricky to generate. Glad you liked it.

• Reviewer: (Aftermath) In early July, Charles was strongly reinforced and renewed his offensive: Just hoping for some more context around this. Reinforced by whom with what?
  • Nominator response: I always struggle to decide just what level of detail to provide. (Assuming it is available in the sources.) Two nice clear queries and both addressed.

• Reviewer: (Aftermath) Vannes came to terms: does this mean they completely folded (and acquiesced to all terms) or just "came to the table", so to speak? Forgive me: I am less than a dilettante.
  • Nominator response: Nope. They surrendered on agreed terms. Formally agreed, usually in writing and sealed. As in the terms of a treaty. No need to apologise - the article is meant to make sense to a general audience. I have tweaked it to "Vannes agreed terms of surrender and fell to the French"; does that help.

• Spot Check 1: For a distinguished editor, my rule-of-thumb is to review 5% of citations. Given the length of the article, I will round this up to 2 spot checks.
  • • "Distinguised" eh? That sounds like fighting talk to me!

• • Article statement: This was the start of Edward's "provincial strategy", by which he sided with French vassals of Philip in their disagreements with him: this promoted Edward's claim to be the rightful king of France and potentially created military allies.

Sourced? Yes: Thus emerged his so-called ‘provincial strategy’,2 a technique already attempted in Flanders and soon to be extended into many other areas of France. The idea was simple, but effective. The English king sought to intervene in private disputes between the Valois and their feudal vassals, thus creating new allies, challenging Philip VI’s rights as suzerain, and dissipating French military resources.

• Spot Check 2:
  • Article statement: Joanna travelled to England where she went mad; she died in September 1374.

Sourced? Yes: The Countess of Montfort [...] returned to England with Edward III. Shortly afterwards she went mad. In October 1343 she was taken with all her personal belongings to the grim Norman castle of Tickhill in southern Yorkshire. She survived for more than thirty years, but took no further part in evenets. Her infant children were lodged in the Tower of London, where a small household was created for them under the discharge of a royal clerk.

Reviewer comment: I recognise that "went mad" is a direct quote (although not attributed as such)... But I wonder if there would be some encyclopaedic benefit to putting "went mad" in quotations (it's very informal and doesn't, really, mean anything) and giving a bit more of the context that I see is in the source?

• • • LOL, I smacked this in from memory, not realising that it was so close. That said. I have several times been told at FAC that there is no need to put brief and simple English expressions in quote marks. That said, if I had realised I would have paraphrased, which I now have - "insane". Expanded somewhat - you don't think it's getting off topic?

• • • • I always consider an article to have a primary topic and some subtopics. For Dracula, this would be the novel itself and Bram Stoker. I would consider the main combatants subtopics of this conflict – I think some context about what happened to them in the years to come is helpful to readers (especially those unfamiliar with the story!). And I agree – no need to include quotations for such a short quote; but I think it is so vague that a bit more context would be helpful. To me, "went insane" means you were completely nonfunctional. There's a kind of sinister subtext that she was fine but kept out of the way (but remember, I am less than a dilettante). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 15:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Give me a ping when you have responded and I'll be happy to promote – I am confident it meets the criteria. I have made some small edits directly to the page, also. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Wonderful stuff ImaginesTigers, just what it needed. Many thanks. Your comments are all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

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.

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 LunaEclipse talk 15:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1342 Joanna of Montfort led the successful defence of Hennebont when it was besieged by a large French army?

• Source: Sumption, Jonathan (1990). Trial by Battle. The Hundred Years' War. Vol. I. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 978-0-571-20095-5. Pages 394–395.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Abingdon bun throwing
• Comment: I am open to suggestions for alt hooks.

5x expanded by Gog the Mild (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 81 past nominations.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: New enough and long enough (expanded x5 and promoted to GA status all in the past week). Article is well-written and well-sourced, and sources seem to be reliable ones. No apparent copyright violation (Earwig's Copyvio Detector stands at 0.0%). Hook cited (Sumption (1990) is a book which is not readily-available for me to check, but the content of the hook can be verified by other sources which are available eg. Visser & Snijder (2014)). QPQ done. My only comment is that perhaps the hook can be slightly amended to include the "Flame of Brittany" nickname - perhaps something along the lines of:

• ALT1: ... that Joanna of Montfort became known as the "Flame of Brittany" after she led the successful defence of Hennebont against a besieging French army in 1342?

@Gog the Mild: What do you think regarding ALT1 above? (I'm unsure whether it's necessary to link Brittany in this case). Xwejnusgozo (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Xwejnusgozo, that works for me. I would not link Brittany. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Seems good to go to me using ALT1a below, without the link to Brittany:

• ALT1a: ... that Joanna of Montfort became known as the "Flame of Brittany" after she led the successful defence of Hennebont against a besieging French army in 1342?

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for your input, and once again good job on the rewrite! Xwejnusgozo (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)