Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 25 February 2022 [1].

Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356 edit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I run towards the end of articles on the Edwardian phase of the Hundred Years' War I hope to get to FA, I am hoping to go out with a bang. Described as "the most important campaign of the Hundred Years' War", a modest Anglo-Gascon force set out on a major raid through south-west France. Six weeks later the French believed they had them cornered and, refusing to negotiate, attacked. The battle of Poitiers is for another article, but the campaign concluded with the French king being escorted back to Bordeaux as a prisoner. This went through GAN a little while ago and I believe it ready for the rigors of FAC, so tilt your lances at it and let us see who is last editor standing. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 14:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe, note that I have added a new map which you will wish to check. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's fine. (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

Another fine article on the Hundred Years' War from Gog. A handful of very minor carps and cavils on the prose:

  • Lead
  • "Do we need the words "carried out" in the first sentence?
Expurged.
  • "a long drawn out battle" – I don't dispute Gowers's maxim "if you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad", but I think you want two of them here, though I may be wrong (or mad).
These are not mutually-exclusive propositions. Hyphenated.
  • "captured the French King" – capitalised "King" here, but uncapitalised in the first para.
I have uncapitalised in both instances when when his name is immediately given, and capitalised in both cases when "French King" is used to mean "John II". That's my understanding of MOS:JOBTITLES. I may be wrong; I am certainly mad.
  • Background
  • "The only significant French possession" – and what did it signify? I think you mean important, substantial or some such.
Signifying nothing, used in the sense of "important, notable" which my Oxford dictionary claims has been a usage since 1761.
This is Fowler on significant:
The dictionaries give important as one of the definitions of significant, but to use it merely as a synonym for that word is to waste it. The primary sense of significant is conveying a meaning or suggesting an inference. A division in the House of Commons may be important without being significant; the failure of some members to vote in it may be significant without being important. There is no important change in the patient's condition means that he is neither markedly better nor markedly worse. There is no significant change in the patient's condition means that there is no change which either confirms or throws doubt on the previous prognosis.
And this is Gowers:
This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large when one is dealing with numbers or quantities or other mathematical concepts. For one thing it has a special and precise meaning for mathematicians and statisticians which they are entitled to keep inviolate. For another, it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'
How depressing that a venerable usage should be swept aside by a modern fad, but who am I to stand in the way of progress. Both changed.
  • Chevauchée
  • "All of the fighting men were mounted" – no need for the "of", surely?
Removed.
  • "to prevent the Prince's forces from disbursing widely" – I think perhaps you mean "dispersing" here.
I keep doing that! Thank you.
  • "the destruction being wracked in south-west France" – according to the latest (2015) edition of Fowler this should be either "wreaked" (preferably) or at a pinch "wrought". (Personally I prefer the latter, but I rarely presume to argue with Fowler.)
Having consulted two dictionaries, one with "Oxford" in the title, it seems an inoffensive use of "wrack". Nor am I sure why we should switch to the past tense. But changed.
  • Clashes along the Loire
  • "ordered them to also move towards Tours. He was also willing to fight" – you could lose one or both the "also"s here.
I use that too much. Both gone, plus two others.
  • "He still hoped to cross the Loire River" – we don't need to be told again that the Loire is a river.
I thought it a useful reminder for the inattentive reader, but gone.
I find it unimaginable that any reader could be inattentive when reading this page-turner of an article. Tim riley talk 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Creep!
  • "search for passages of the Loire, but the River Loire, but as before were unable to find passable fords" – some extra and unwanted words have sneaked their way in here.
Oops. Desneaked.
  • "The camp fires of the French army" – the OED hyphenates "camp-fire"
Done.
  • Other English offensives
  • "attempts … were still underway" – should be "under way" – two unhyphenated words – according to the OED.
I suspect the OED to be a little behind the times there, see eg its Cambridge competitor, but changed.
From Alan Bennett's Forty Years On:
FRANKLIN: Have you ever thought, Headmaster, that your standards might perhaps be a little out of date?
HEADMASTER: Of course they're out of date. Standards always are out of date. That is what makes them standards.
And Chambers' Dictionary is with the OED: it goes straight from underwater to underwear. Tim riley talk 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strategy
  • "there were no significant French forces" – what would these forces have signified?
In the sense of being "important, notable", see above. Significant, like many English words has several meanings.
  • Battle of Poitiers
  • "aiming to defeat them in detail" – I have not run across this phrase before and would be glad of an explanation of its meaning.
Defeat in detail, now linked.
Thank you. I've learned something today (in addition to all the interesting facts in your article, I mean). Tim riley talk 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, they were dependant on the agreement" – when used as an adjective the spelling is "dependent"
Well, well. One of those that is smack your head obvious - once it has been pointed out. Corrected.
  • "senior advisors" – strange, and not especially welcome, to see AmE "advisor" instead of the customary English "adviser" here.
  • Post-battle
  • "over laden" – "overladen" according to the OED.
D'oh!
  • Aftermath
  • "Clifford J. Rogers" – we've been introduced to him earlier, when he was plain "Clifford Rogers" (and we don't need a second blue-link).
I completely agree and have removed it, but note the, erm, forceful opposition of Sandstein here
I think you have done the right thing, both as regards common sense and, which is not necessarily the same thing, the Manual of Style. Tim riley talk 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but neither was inclined to change their attitude" – singular verb with plural pronoun
Changed.
  • Notes
  • "one of John's closest advisors" – another AmE "advisor"
I blame my misspent youth. Corrected.

Those are my few quibbles. I'll look in again in confident expectation of adding my support. – Tim riley talk 10:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again Tim. I breathe my usual sigh of relief at your having knocked the nonsense out of my prose. See what you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly knocking the nonsense out! My cavils were so small as to be barely visible with the naked eye. I'm very happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. Clear, concise, well and widely sourced, highly readable, and, as far as I am any judge, comprehensive. And beautifully illustrated as usual. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. A pleasure to review; I shall be sad when there are no more new FACs for Hundred Years' War articles. Tim riley talk 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you do cheer me up, Mr riley. One of the things working on the Hundred Years' War has been preventing me getting to grips with is a dozen or more articles from the Second Punic War - Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, elephants etc. Hopefully you will enjoy them as much. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed edit

I'll do this in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the sources, Harari's name is written out differently for his two publications and the second one of the two is Wikilinked. It seems that only the first of the two should be Wikilinked.
Name standardised and Wikilink moved.
  • Rogers's author-link (the 1994 publication) goes to a redirect.
And so?
And so I thought that was an issue until I read WP:NOTBROKEN just now. But for the sake of standardization, I think the author's name should be consistently either "Clifford J Rogers" or "Clifford J. Rogers". Since the period is used in the title of the article about him, that seems the logical choice. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Done.
  • I see Rogers author-linked (editor-linked, actually) a second time as an editor (of his own 2004 book), but not as a primary author. This looks like the right choice to me, but I thought I would mention it unless you actually felt otherwise, but hadn't noticed.
I hadn't noticed. Like all Wikilinks, one usually only links once per article. So I am inclined to remove this second link, but won't if you feel that I shouldn't.
I think you should feel free to follow your heart if you can't find clear guidance in the MOS (I couldn't), but if you want me to tell you, I would say leave the first author-link as well as the editor-link. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Left.
  • The external link to Rogers's 2004 publication brings up a Google book version of the correct volume with a search result for the phrase "battle of bergerac", but not to correct starting page. Seems to me that it would be better to use this simplified link.
Done. Thanks.
Page numbers added.
Er, because of sloppiness? Fixed.
  • Rogers 2014: The external link goes to a PDF of just chapter 11, but the source listing is for the whole book.
Link removed.
  • Sumption 1990: I'm seeing library and Google Books listings for this book indicating that the title of the book is The Hundred Years War, and that the first volume has its own title: "Trial by Battle". This tells me that the volume parameter should be "I: Trial by Battle" and that the title parameter should be "The Hundred Years War". Using the series parameter in this way doesn't seem right given how the book is listed elsewhere on the web. See the book cover and title page here.
  • Sumption 1999: Same comment.
I am looking at a hard copy of the 1999 volume. The front cover reads "Trial by Fire: The Hundred Years War II". The title page reads "The Hundred Years War [line break] Volume II: Trial by Fire". I have gone, as best I can, with the cover version. WHich achieves what we both think is sensible. I could switch to the title page version if you think that preferable.
I looked up both volumes again in WorldCat using the ISBN and I find both books listed under the series name as well as under the volume name, so I think you're free to follow either, especially given your greater familiarity with the actual books. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sumption 1990: The "The Hundred Years War" title appears in Google Books and in WorldCat without the apostrophe in "Years".
  • Sumption 1999: Same comment.
Both apostrophies removed
It is usual to give each reference to an encyclopedia or dictionary as a separate entry. The first one is listed as a book because I am not referencing an entry in the encyclopedia.
  • When I click to edit the Sources section, I notice that some of the source listings are written out with multiple line breaks and others are not. Is that a problem, or am I just being silly?
The latter.

Also – and I did not do a thorough check of your inline citations – I did notice that citation 18 is lacking a page number.

That is defensible, but inconsistent. Standardised.
Found another! citation 132. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha. Fixed.

After looking into the publications and authors listed, it appears that they are all high-quality and scholarly. I'm also seeing a good spread of names and publication dates mostly within the last 30 years or so, which tells me that it is less likely that outdated perspectives are reflected in the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dugan, that is very good of you and much appreciated. All of your comments addressed, a couple with queries. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Only two issues remain dangling: the period following Rogers's middle initial and citation 132. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Sorted. I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I approve. I consider this article to have passed my review of the source listings, in terms of formatting and quality. Ping me if something else needs my attention on this review. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • The Black Prince is linked twice in the first paragraph.
Fixed.
  • "Edward launched a further campaign". As the Black Prince is also called Edward, I think it would be clearer if you always referred to the king as 'King Edward'.
  • I find the figures confusing. In the lead you say "Between 12,000 and 14,000 French troops, including at least 10,400 men-at-arms, attacked". In the infobox the same figure, so presumably just the battle, not the whole chevauchée, but this is not made clear.
Good point. Tweaked.
  • 4,500 nobles killed or captured seems much too high in an army with over 10,400 men at arms out of maybe no more than 12,000.
I have just finished bringing Battle of Poitiers up to (what I hope is) FAC standard, and have better figures for participants. A minimum of 14,000 French, with a minimum of 4,500 men-at-arms killed or captured. (Plus 3,800 commoners.) This is very well sourced and there is no hint of a suspicion that the numbers are exaggerated.
I have realised that my confusion over the figures was due to assuming that men at arms means common soldiers as opposed to nobles. Perhaps clarify for the benefit of ignorant people like me. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. You are very far from ignorant on this area. I have clearly committed the classic error of getting too close and assuming that specialist knowledge is generally known. I have added a footnote at first mention, do you feel that addresses the issue sufficiently?
  • In the main text "The French army, of 14,000 to 16,000 men, was also divided into three battles or divisions, plus a further 2,000 men-at-arms in reserve", higher than in the lead, and you do not say so far as I can see how many were engaged.
Yes, that is unclear. Thank you. Rephrased. I have removed mention of "engaged", as you say, this is about the chevauchée, not the battle.

You say "2,000 to 3,000 men-at-arms. 2,500 French nobles were killed", but no figure for those captured as in the infobox.

Er: "John was captured; as was the oriflamme; one of John's sons, Philip; and according to different sources 2,000 to 3,000 men-at-arms."
Yes I misread this, partly due to starting the sentence with a figure, which I understand is considered bad practice. It helps to have a capital letter at the start of a sentence. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I don't understand why, but it is frowned on in the MoS. Fixed.

2,500 nobles killed still seems too high as the lead implies that there may have been no more than 1,600 in total (12,000-10,400) engaged.

Nope. The sourcing is clear. The dead included the King's uncle, his standard bearer, the grand constable of France; one of the two marshals, the Bishop of Châlons and about 3,300 common soldiers. Those captured included the King, one of his sons, the archbishop of Sens, the other marshal of France, and the seneschals of Saintonge, Tours and Poitou. Hence Rogers describing it as "the most important campaign of the Hundred Years' War" and France collapsing into the Jacquerie.
  • "The same year the Black Death reached northern France and southern England,[13] eventually resulting in the death of approximately 45 per cent of the population". This is dubious for several reasons. It is one source in a highly contested debate, so not definitive. The source says "Comparing the relative amounts of high medieval (copious) to late medieval (much scarcer) pottery suggests that the pottery-using population across eastern England was around 45% lower in the centuries after the Black Death than before". So it is usage of pottery in only one part of England, whereas you imply that it is the figure for the population reduction of France and England. This is drawing far too broad a conclusion from one of many measures. The figure compares high with later medieval pottery, so it would also cover later outbreaks of plague. You acknowledge this point by saying "eventually resulting in the death" but it is only the first outbreak which is relevant for the chevauchée.
I had not realised that the figures were debated. Although I could have been more precise in my phraseology. I have reworded and replaced the source with two of the leading scholars of the Hundred Year's War, each of whom are discussing the number of fatalities in volumes specifically on the war. Note that both link the death rates they quote to just the period 1347-1350. Both indicate a death rate in Southern England during this period of around 45%, but I have fudged this in my revision.
  • "bridging train". Is there an article you could link to in order to explain this term? Does it mean a set of pontoons for a temporary bridge?
There is no such article that I am aware of.
I don't know. The modern sources all simply say "bridging train". I would guess that they are all using the same Medieval source which is similarly uninformative, but that is OR.
If you are not sure what a bridging train is I would delete. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am entirely sure what a bridging train is. It is a set of mobile equipment with which one can bridge a river. Why would one wish to know any more? This is summary style. One may as well say don't mention horses if one does not know their breed. Etc.
I misunderstood you. I thought "I don't know" meant that you do not know what a bridging train is. So how about "bridging train (mobile equipment for bridging a river)"? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a footnote. How is that.
  • 1356. I found the start of this section confusing at first with "Further information: Lancaster's Normandy chevauchée of 1356" and then what seemed like the start of the chevauchée. Maybe move heading 'Prelude' up to directly after '1356' and 'Further information' down two paragraphs to head "Seeing an opportunity, Edward diverted an expedition planned for Brittany..."
It seems to me that that would further confuse rather than clarify. I have removed both "Further information: Lancaster's Normandy chevauchée of 1356" and the sub-heading 1356. Does that help?
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox is unclear. The heading is the chevauchée, so the details should be for the entire campaign, but they seem to be just for the battle. Also there does not seem to be any citation for figure of 4500 nobles killed or captured. Why the vague figure for common infantry killed and wounded when you say 3300 killed below?
  • I still find the figures confusing. In the lead you say "Between 12,000 and 14,000 French troops, including at least 10,400 men-at-arms". This implies - if I now know what I am talking about - that there may have been as few as 1600 common infantry, yet you say 3300 were killed. In the main text you says 14 to 16000, with 2000 men at arms held in reserve under the king, which suggests you excluded the reserve in the lead, but it should be included as you say the king did fight. In the infobox you say the strength was over 14000, so there are 3 different versions of French numbers. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I think that I now have my head wrapped round it. The figures given in the lead and the article for French participants and casualties in the Battle of Poitiers should match. Those in the infobox do not. This is because the infobox is for the whole campaign, for which no sources attempt even an estimate of French participants and casualties. So all I can say is that they were more than those we know to have been present at Poitiers. Similarly for French casualties. I am open to suggestions for other ways of addressing this. (I considered taking French participants and casualties out of the infobox altogether, but this seemed a counsel of despair.)
All of your comments to date now addressed I think Dudley. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If no sources try to estimate the number of French participants and casualties, I would not try to come up with that estimate ourselves. Better not to give any number in the infobox and let the reader know what is known later in the article.
Infobox amended accordingly.
Also there's a harv error: Wagner, 2006e & 53–54. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation. (t · c) buidhe 09:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know that I added that source! I assume I forgot to click Publish or edit conflicted myself! Thanks Buidhe. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The French army, of 14,000 to 16,000 men: 10,000–12,000 were men-at-arms, 2,000 were crossbowmen and 2,000 infantrymen". So there were 4000 common soldiers. "Approximately 2,500 French men-at-arms were killed, as were approximately 3,300 common soldiers.". So over 80% of the common soldiers were killed? That seems very high, or was it not unusual for the period? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly on an OR basis, they seem a little high to me too. I wonder if the modern sources have been over generous in accepting contemporary figures. It is possible that the chroniclers' estimates for the dead weren't too far out, but included camp followers, miscellaneous civilians (farriers, armourers, blacksmiths etc), pavise bearers and others not included in the 4,000 combatants. I stress that this is pure OR, there is no hint of this in the modern RSs. And it is not actually inconceivable. The losing side in Medieval battles typically took horrendous casualties - pursuits were devastating - and common infantry usually had a high death rate, often much higher - it was unusual for prisoners to be taken and the wounded would be killed out of hand. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and is estimated to have killed a third of the population of Western Europe, although the death rate was higher in England". I am still doubtful. Most estimates I have seen are higher than that. I would leave out. You describe its impact as disastrous and you do not need get into actual figures.
Dudley, forgive me being frank, but your dubiousness is not relevant. I have sourced the numbers to two impeccable sources. Both using them very much in a military context and both specifying that the figures apply to the period before the chevauchée. I fail to see why if we have a scholarly consensus for something we should deliberately obfuscate in what we tell the reader. Re the numbers seeming low, I agree. But these only apply to the first outbreak of 1347-50, they do not claim to be the total of fatalities of all outbreaks of the Black Death. As you say above "it is only the first outbreak which is relevant for the chevauchée". Plus I have deliberately fudged the sources, slightly vague, claims of 40-45% fatalities in this wave in deference to what I took to be your disbelief that their was agreement that they were so high.
The Black Death is one of my subjects and I have read several books about it. There is no scholarly consensus. See for example Black Death#Deaths. Estimates for Eurasia vary from 75 to 200 million. Also notes g and h: one historian says 45-50% of the European population, but varying between 75-80 in Italy, southern France and Spain and closer to 20% in Germany and England, another historian says 60% in Europe. The lead has the best summary with 30-60% in Europe, but this would be difficult to source as it is a summary of the views of different historians. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Evening Dudley. Curious, me too. Interesting that we should have come to so different opinions about it. Obviously the death rate varied, it would have been strange if it hadn't. Sumption, one of the sources I offer, gives 50% for Bordeaux and 25% for Paris and explains why they differ. I don't see that this distracts from his summary. And, surprise, Wikipedia is not a reliable source: you probably noted that the source for many of that article's fatalities was this. If this were an article on the Black Death it would be sources at noon. As it isn't I shall with great reluctance deprive readers of the clear consensus of military historians of the death rate in Western Europe in 1347-1350, which seems to be broadly supported by the wider modern scholarship. (A third high quality military historian who gives a number for this period, Harari, goes for "at least a third" for France and "up to a half" for England. Ie, the same as Sumption and Wagner. A moderately thorough search of the literature doesn't throw up any others.) See what you think of my revision. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
John Kelly, The Great Mortality, p. 11, n. "Estimates of the Black Death mortality rate fluctuate almost as often as the stock market." Dudley Miles (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We obviously have different opinions on whether the mortality rate is a matter of debate among experts. I can easily find sources giving figures ranging from a third (Philip Ziegler) to 60% (Ole Jørgen Benedictow). BTW some experts say that the rate was higher among the old and young, and lower among young adults. I wonder whether this would affect the views of military historians. But as you say, this article is not the place for a detailed debate on the Black Death. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Taking this a sign from God" "Taking this as a sign".
Oops. Thank you.
  • "or the Treaty of Guînes" I would delete or give the alternative name at the first mention of the treay. Used here it is ambiguous whether you are referring to another name for the treaty or to another treaty.
I hadn't seen that. I have rejigged with this edit. Does that work?

Dudley Miles (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many thanks Dudley. It probably needed a good kicking. See what you think now. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz edit

Placeholder, should be done tomorrow. JennyOz (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, finally got to finish my nitpicks. Enjoyed the read and surprised, for someone who knows next to nothing about the Hundred Years' War nor military terms, that I understood most. My inner 14-year-old did get a bit confused at mention of "Edward" -when you mostly use Prince- and wondered if Edward III had turned up (eg "Edward set out on 5 October", "Edward would march south", "with either Edward's or Lancaster's armies"). Here's my laundry list (sshhh), move it to talk page if necessary.

lede

  • out in 1337, but a truce - wlink Truce of Calais?
Done.
  • English possession of Gascony 675 miles - the Gascony link should be to Duchy of?
I see the logic, so if you insist I will link it to Duchy of Gascony#Within the Duchy of Aquitaine (1053–1453), but as this is only four lines I feel it less useful than the current link.
No problem. I only mentioned as I saw it at "marched from Bordeaux in English-held Gascony 300 miles".
  • attendants of minor land owners - usually one word ie landowners
Done.
  • They needed to be able to equip themselves - able to afford to?

Background

  • held by the English in France was Gascony in the south - Duchy of
See above.
  • spare few resources for its defence - funds and/or men busy elsewhere?
Probably. Possibly. The sources don't opine. I get the impression that Edward was firefighting pressing threats and opportunities closer to home and it was a few years before he say down and actually came up with a proactive strategic plan. Gascony didn't get serious attention until it was on its last legs. But that's OR.
  • garrisoning - wlink
IMO this is waay into MOS:OVERLINK, but done.
Only thinking of the 14-year-olds.:) Happy for you to remove link.

Black Prince arrives

  • with plenipotentiary powers - wlink
Done.
  • assemblage of bridge making equipment - bridge-making or bridgemaking
Done.
  • treacherous Charles II, king of Navarre - cap K?
Not IMO. We are noting that he is a king of Navarre, not referring directly to him as the King of Navarre.
  • moved to Rouen with - wlink
Done.
  • re-victualling - wlink
I have linked it to victual, which redirects to food which seems to me less than helpful, even leaving overlink aside.
Again for 14s but agree that link is not worthy. Victualler is slightly better but I'm happy for no link.
  • Verneuil - wlink
Oops. Done.
  • bring the English to battle and they escaped. [55][56] - remove space before refs
Done.

Prelude

  • command of an army in Languedoc - wlink
Done.
  • John's fifteen-year-old son John, Count of Poitiers - count of Poitou or just city Poitiers
Linked.
  • of one fifteenth of all of - hyphen ie one-fifteenth
Done.
  • Bretueil was the last fortification - typo Breteuil
D'oh! Fixed.

Heading north

  • Map alt=a map showing the route of the BlackPrince's divisision - space after Black, typo division
Oh! Good spot.
  • would not be able to be adequately defended - simplify? eg would not be adequately defended
Ho hum. OK.
  • seneschal of Gascony - seems to need a cap S (using it here as title)
True. Done.
  • devastate x2 close together - another word?
I would much prefer to leave them as is. I am trying to stress that it is the same thing, which may be lost if I synonymise.
  • extremely brutal ... methodical - proper ellipsis, ie brutal ... methodical
  • The populace of most towns fled - plural ie populaces?
Done.
IMO it is not close enough to either to merit a link. I could red link it?
  • which persuaded them to vacate the town. The French army promptly marched south, as all available forces were concentrated against the Black Prince - is there a connection?
Between what? If I am reading you right then John was under immense pressure to march against the Black Prince, but felt committed to capturing Breteuil before he did. The moment he paid the Breteuil garrison enough to persuade then to leave his army was off on its main job - protecting France from the English.

Retreating south

  • The same day the Dauphin entered Tours - move introduction Charles V of France up to here?
Very good point. Done.
  • its back to the Loire in an area with few supplies - comma after supplies
I am never going to understand some schools of commaisation. I swear they look as if they are scattered at random, or the result of a speech defect. But I trust you, so done.
Done.
  • was eager wipe them out in - insert to before wipe
Done.

Battle of Poitiers

  • other way that seems best to him." - move full stop?
Er, why? I assume you are thinking of MOS:LQ[?] and we are interpreting it differently. "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark. For the most part, this means treating periods and commas in the same way as question marks: keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence." would seem to indicate that my usage is at least permissible.
Was just checking LQ as I couldn't see source. No prob.
  • a truce, but as his army's supplies were already running out the - needs comma after "out"
You are having fun with me. Yes?
Always! Nah, I dislike over "commaisation" too. (I swear some editors would type "Last night, I slept.") I was actually surprised at some you did include. The two I mentioned seemed to need pairs.
  • the French sacred standard, the oriflamme, - move lang template to this first mention?
Thinking about it, surely Oriflamme is a proper noun? If so it should not be in italics and should be capitalise. Either way I have been inconsistent.
The arbalists in question were not using arbalests, a later development using a steel rather than wooden prod. The Wikipedia article rambles off talking about a sub-set of arbalists, as Wikipedia articles often do, but as its lead says "An arbalist, also spelled arbelist, is one who shoots a crossbow" and it is the only article which covers all crossbowmen.
  • One contemporary chronicler states that - stated (ie tense per prev "A contemporary chronicler recorded")
  • one of John's sons, Philip - wlink Philip the Bold?
Ah, I did, but then lost it in a footnote. Thanks. Done.

Post-battle

  • paroled some of their prisoners - wlink Parole#Prisoners of war (or do we know terms of parole?)
Linked.
They were many and varied. Each captor negotiated individual arrangements with each of their prisoners. So, basically, no.

Aftermath

  • causing the Treaty to lapse - lower case treaty
Done.
  • Taking this a sign from God - could insert "as" after "this" (or someone prob will)
Done.
  • In October 1359 Edward led another campaign - link Reims campaign?
Added.

Notes

  • ref 51 Rogers 2014, pp. 342, 244. - is that 2nd page 344?
You are truly eagle-eyed. It is. (There is a map on page 343
  • Prestwich, Michael - add authorlink

Extra

  • Gog, pls check south west v south-west v southwest (maybe just the 2 word instance in infobox and the one word need tweaking?
Nice. I had messed up in the infobox. (I think. I am being stalked by a new editor who "improves" a hundred or so infoboxes every day.) Someone else seems to have "helpfully" changed south west to southwest. Both sorted. Thanks.
  • you intended to change the 2 x advisor to adviser?
I did. I thought I had. Done.

Thanks for the article and your patience. JennyOz (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, wonderful stuff Jenny. Yet again I don't know how I can thank you. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK Gog, I have added some notes to your comments above simply to explain my thinking. Thanks for the tweaks and explanations. I am happy to sign my support. JennyOz (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

@FAC coordinators: May I post a second nomination? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead (t · c) buidhe 23:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Black_Prince%27s_chevauchée_of_1356/archive1&oldid=1074021698"