Talk:Battle of Damme

Ship numbers

How reliable are the estimates of ship strength given that Medieval chroniclers were prone to exaggeration? I do not think that these estimates can be uncritically repeated in wiki voice. Kges1901 (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kges1901: Good point. One suspects not very. They seem high. I had thought this when I first looked at the article, but by the time I finished I was accepting it uncritically. Thanks for pulling me up on it. I have several sources which talk around the edges of this. I shall see what I can patch together. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for beginning to address this, as it would have come up on the GA review either way. Kges1901 (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kges1901: Oh yes, it needed tackling. Thanks again for focusing me on it. Article heavily rewritten. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The article is much improved. For consistency, you should cite the 1911 Britannica Article on Damme the same way as the one in the bibliography. Kges1901 (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kges1901: Gah! I am not doing too well with this one. Thanks for spotting. First time I have had two EB1911 cites in the same article and it tripped me. Corrected, and a couple of other things tweaked. What else can you spot? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Now both EB sfns go to the first article. The template should have a way of differentiating them. Kges1901 (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kges1901: This must be trying your patience. Apologies. I cannot find guidance on how to differentiate EB1911 articles when neither have named authors, so I have fudged it. Is it acceptable do you feel? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I have manually overriden the year parameter myself to differentiate them. Some content notes are that William Marshal is mentioned in the aftermath, but his relevance is not briefly explained, and, do secondary sources discuss Philip's actions after the defeat uncritically repeating what the chroniclers said, or do they qualify it – his actions seem somewhat extreme. Kges1901 (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kges1901:

I didn't know that one could do that. It seems obvious now. Thank you.

Marshall - rephrased.

Brookes probably gives the best modern account. He explicitly mistrusts the accounts of the time. Here, about a page from the end of the chapter, the paragraph starting "Philippe had now definitely intended to abandon his intended attack upon England." and ending "Philippe did what many a commander in a tight fix has had to do, he destroyed his stores to prevent them falling into the hands of the enemy."

You would probably also like chapter 23 in the same source. (Just check the title in the contents.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Damme/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 07:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is in good shape. I have a few comments:

• in the lead, state that Damme was in the County of Flanders in the second sentence

Done.

• it isn't clear whether Philip II was at sea during the battle and ordered the ships to be burned when they returned, or was onshore and ordered them burned when they returned? Might need a tweak to clarify

If you mean in the lead, it seems clear to me. Could you reread and confirm. If you still think it needs tweaking then I am clearly too close and will rewrite it. (The ships burnt were those anchored within Damme's (small) harbour and those beached which the English had not yet got to.)

Not sure what I was thinking there. Seems clear to me now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• the lead should say why the English were so successful, why the French were at anchor/beached.

Done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• state what year John came to the throne

Done.

• be consistent with the king's ordinals

Done.

• link Holy Roman Emperor

Done.

• is there an article for the German noble rebellion?

Not that I can find. This (Diet of Nuremberg) is the best there seems to be and it didn't seem helpful to link it. I could put in a red link?

• you can probably drop the King from John, unless there is another John? There are a couple of these.

Done.

• link vassal

Done.

• John was excommunicated? Why? This should be included earlier?

Done.

• suggest Count of Flanders→Ferdinand

Done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Thank you for going through this. All done bar you second point, see comment above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• for castle link Forecastle as this is the structure you are referring to, and deitalicise

Deitalicised. Not linked. The "forecastle" described in the link bears no resemblance to the large, raised, temporary fighting platform installed fore and aft on late-Medieval merchant ships, to the extent that I would consider linking to be misleading. There doesn't seem to be an article on these. Or even, that I can find, any mention of them in articles where you would expect to find it. When writing this article I considered writing one on Castle (nautical), but I don't enjoy writing on technical hardware. I have expanded the mention to a brief (sourced) description?

Ok. Seems similar to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• link Displacement (ship)

Done.

• fn 10 needs a full stop before it

Done.

• comma after "In 1206" and other examples

I don't follow what seems to me to be the habit of inserting near random commas towards the start of sentences. Unless they are otherwise required. If you tell me that it is a Wikipedia requirement I will insert them with extreme reluctance. (Although to an extent I will be guessing where they are supposed to go.) It fits no system of grammar or punctuation I have encountered pre-Wikipedia, although I confess that it is a large minority in Wikipedia. (When doing GOCE copy edits I would estimate that 25-30% of articles I have encountered use it. I tend to just let it lie and have not, yet, had complaints. That said I have often just ripped them out, and not had complaints either.)

Not a requirement, of course. I was taught to insert commas when I pause while reading, and I do that when a sentence begins "In XXXX," Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Me too . But I don't pause when I say "In 1206 fifty galleys were recorded...", any more than after the date in "De Mauléon returned to English service and in 1216 was appointed by John...". Do people really pause in the middle of "In 1206 fifty galleys were recorded..."? Rhetorical. (You may, or may not, be interested that I consulted two language professors (acquaintances) over your comments: in broad summary their opinions were "It depends".)

• suggest the Count of Flanders→Ferdinand - a couple of these

Done

• consider linking Knight

Changed to men-at-arms and linked.

• suggest "where they unexpectedly found the French armada" if that is correct

Done. It is.

• suggest "The English were surprised"

Done.

• suggest "as Damme itself"

I am not sure where you are referring to. Do you mean at the start of the sentence "Damme is located on the estuary of the Zwyn, now largely silted up."?

No, where it currently says "as the town itself", as the last town mentioned is Ghent, but I believe you mean Damme? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

My goodness, I do write some rubbish. Left over from an earlier removal of "Damme" and I was/am so close I just couldn't see it. Thanks for picking it up. Done.

• suggest "lost a total of approximately"

Done.

• the sentence beginning "Furious at the performance..." is a little convoluted, suggest breaking it up

Done.

• in what kingdom was La Rochelle?

Depends who you asked. It was complicated and records are not clear. To put it mildly. I tried inserting "... the friendly port of..." but it read clunkily. Seems a bit off topic to go into too much detail in the aftermath. Rewritten, reference added. I think that it reads more coherently now.

• suggest "that Otto's army assembled"

See above.

• what are the widgets in front of the two Chisholm refs?

No idea. They turn up when I use {{cite EB1911....

• the EB refs need OCLCs, you can get them from Worldcat

You can't do that with a {{cite EB1911... template. If you do they don't show. See current version of the article. If I change to {{cite encyclopedia... the ES1911 guys are likely to change it - see talk on Battle of Sluys) Done.

That's me done, placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: All points addressed, but some issues still to resolve I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Just a couple of very minor things remaining. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I think that is everything covered. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)