Talk:Battle of Bergerac/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 09:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking good. A few minor drafting points:

• Lead
  • Could be a bit fuller. Ideally (especially if you have eventual FAC in mind) the lead should summarise everything that follows in the text. You might touch very briefly on Anglo-French relations, the current control of Gascon terrritory and Edward III's three-pronged attack.

Good points. Working on them.

Now done.

Tons better. Tim riley talk 10:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• • "An Anglo-Gascon Army" – capital A for Army?

Oops.

• Background
  • Second para: "over" in two successive sentences is a bit obtrusive and could be avoided by making the second "more than".

Done.

• • "levied by the crown" – for clarity I'd make this "the English crown"

Done.

• • "English controlled territory" – hyphen desirable here.

Done.

• Plans
  • "Derby was given an high degree" – typo

Done.

• Prelude
  • "They captured the large, weakly garrisoned castles of Montravel and Monbreton on the Dordogne in early June; they were taken by surprise" – better make it clear that the first "they" are the English and the second "they" are the castles. (Also in the Battle of Auberoch article, now I look again.)

And in Gascon campaign of 1345. This, and all of the above, amended in all three.

• • "A number of local French groups … a number of minor nobles" – another slightly noticeable repetition – "several" or some such for one of them would do the trick.

Done.

• Battle
  • "the panic stricken French" – hyphen wanted, I think.

Done.

• • "Aramagnac" – as opposed to Coganac, no doubt.

And his peers, the Baron of Beaujolais and the Duke of Damassine.

Those are all my quibbles. Over to you. Tim riley talk 09:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Tim riley: Many thanks for picking up a second 1345 GAN, it is appreciated. All of your points have been addressed. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. Clearly of GA standard. Before I cut the ribbon could you just explain what is meant by "contra Sumption" at footnote 44? My vestigial Latin (1960s vintage) takes me as far as a literal translation, but I'm not sure what it is meant to convey to the reader here. Tim riley talk 10:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Afterthought: I have just spotted that Note 4, about the Savoy Palace, could do with a citation. Tim riley talk 10:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Tim riley: Good spot. I inherited it. It is supposed to mean 'contrary to Sumption's statement on this page'. However, investigating a little further before I replied I discover that Rogers also holds this view. (It was conflated with his views on the details of the "running battle" and I had missed it.) Given that it is not just a lone dissenting voice, I think that I can no longer get away with a brief footnote. I will need to rewrite to reflect the scholarly diversity. Thanks for saving me from embarrassment. I will get back to you once it is done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Tim riley: Last paragraph of Battle rewritten to better reflect the sources. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Looks good. And the citation I demanded for the note about the cost of the Savoy? Tim riley talk 16:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Tim riley: Apologies, I didn't notice that one. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Good; we progress. Two quibbles about the revised lead:

• "it had been expected to rely on their own resources" - please unmangle pronouns and singular and plural.

Done.

• "set back" – the OED hyphenates this. Tim riley talk 18:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

So it does - well I never. Done.

• @Tim riley: More haste, more errors. Sorted, I hope. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

All OK now. Happy to promote. Tim riley talk 13:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)