This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legobot(talk | contribs) at 13:07, 25 March 2019(BOT: Adding |oldid=867008539 to {{GA}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:07, 25 March 2019 by Legobot(talk | contribs)(BOT: Adding |oldid=867008539 to {{GA}})
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
A fact from Battle of Damme appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 December 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that at the Battle of Damme, a smaller English fleet captured 300 French ships and burned another 100?
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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."
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.)
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?
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.)
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."?
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.
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)[reply]
.svg)
. 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".)