Talk:Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355/GA1

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Sturmvogel 66 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply


  • I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Images appropriately licensed
  • No DABs, external links OK
  • The campaign was a part of the Hundred Years' War. Maybe incorporate this at the end of the first sentence?
Done.
  • an eleven month siege, three week break and English held towns All need hyphens
Done.
  • John II of France (r. 1350–1364), attempted to strongly garrison his northern towns and fortifications against the expected descent by Edward III, at the same time as assembling a large field army Perhaps "John II of France (r. 1350–1364) attempted to strongly garrison his northern towns and fortifications against the expected descent by Edward III while also assembling a large field army at the same time, but..."?
If I were reviewing your suggestion for another editor's nom I would be inclined to write something like 'one of "while also" or "at the same time" is redundant'. I am not sure what you are trying to amend or correct, but is there another way of doing it? (I could insert 'while' after "Edward III," if that would help.)
Something about this sentence struck me as awkward. My reformulation deliberately included the redundancy to emphasize the concurrent nature of these actions. Rereading your sentence again, I think my objection comes down to "as" in the last clause. Give it a try without that and see how it reads to you; no action required, of course.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
You are right, it reads better without the "as". I am not sure why I couldn't see that. "as" removed. Thank you.
  • great chevauchée, a large scale mounted raid Duplicates part of the first sentence of the lede
Correct. I think that am missing something. (I have removed "great" from the main article as being unnecessary.)
Is your reply missing a word? Why do you want to define chevauchée again, here? I don't think that this is a long enough article that readers will have already forgotten it from the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Me neither. I have no problem with taking it out, but if I don't redefine it, won't I be picked up for giving information in the lead which is not in the article?
I don't think that that applies to a simple definition, but you can always test your supposition ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • It was hoped to turn back passive voice
Oops. Now more active.

Hi Sturmvogel 66, many thanks for that. Your points above addressed, albeit in a couple of cases only with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sturmvogel 66 And one query left. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply