Talk:Battle of Bergerac/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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.


 * 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:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

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