Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chevauchée of Edward III of 1346/archive1

Chevauchée of Edward III of 1346

 * Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

An invading English army landed in Normandy in July 1346. During the next seven weeks it burnt and looted its way across France, coming within 2 miles of the walls of Paris. Every time it met French forces it defeated them, including at the battle of Crecy. It halted at Calais, which the English besieged and starved into submission over 11 months. Hopefully this is approaching FA quality, but I would be grateful to those who point out the no doubt multifarious ways in which it doesn't. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * A few things.
 * The lede tells us all about the war, but not what they fought each other for. I gather the English put the French to rout, but you could tell us in the lede why they crossed the Channel in the first place.
 * I had thought the lead over-long already. I have inserted something, but attempted to keep it brief.


 * "The Gascons preferred their relationship with a distant English king who left them alone, to one with a French king who would interfere in their affairs.[3][4]" I might cut the comma.
 * Done.


 * "Although Gascony was the cause of the war, Edward was able to spare few resources for it and whenever an English army campaigned on the continent it had operated in northern France.[6] " I would put a comma after the first "it" (and maybe one after "continent") and omit the "had". Should the second "it" be "they" in BritEng? (ditto other times "army" becomes "it")
 * Done. (But not the proposed second/third comma.) So far as I am aware, an army becomes an it in standard BritEng.


 * "despatched" While I can see this is proper in BritEng, I read that it's not the preferred spelling. YMMV.
 * Changed.


 * "Derby, now Lancaster," I would explain this in greater detail.
 * Quite right. Apologies. My footnoted explanation had been moved to his first mention. Reinstated and a brief explanation added tot he main text.


 * "Edward was not only morally obliged to succor his vassal, but contractually required to; his indenture with Lancaster stated that if Lancaster were attacked by overwhelming numbers, then Edward "shall rescue him in one way or another".[23]" Was the moral obligation simply the usual obligation of a sovereign, or something more? Which was considered more important? Whichever was, should come first.
 * The sources do not venture an opinion on relative importance, only noting that the formal nature of the indenture added to Edward's normal obligation to a vassal carrying out his liege's command.


 * "hoped for total" does this require a hyphen?
 * Hyphens are my weak point. Thank you. Inserted.


 * "Duke John of Normandy" we have not yet been introduced to this no doubt worthy individual.
 * "John, Duke of Normandy, the son and heir of Philip VI, was placed in charge of all French forces in south west France" in the section "French preparations". I have been strongly advised not to refer to him as Normandy, due to the obvious risk of confusion. So I have followed the lead of several RSs and referred to him as "Duke John after first mention. I have rephrsed his title at first mention to hopefully make things clearer.


 * "After his surprise landing in Normandy Edward was devastating some of the richest land in France and flaunting his ability to march at will through France." I would avoid the double use of "France".
 * Good point. Amended.


 * "The English men-at-arms had dismounted for the battle, and by the time they received the French charges they had lost much of their impetus.[101] " You use "they" to mean different things five words apart.
 * Whoops. Rewritten.


 * "The two cardinals representing Pope Clement VI travelled between the armies, but neither king would speak to them.[114]" Starting the sentence with "The" means to me that we are supposed to have heard of these people before but I don't see that. Are these the envoys who Edward would not listen to earlier?
 * Ah, that is me being too close. They are. First mention amended to tie in with later mentions.


 * "Recriminations were rife: officials at all levels of the Chambre des Comptes (the French treasury) were dismissed; all financial affairs were put into the hands of a committee of three senior abbots; the King's council bent their efforts to blaming each other for the kingdom's misfortunes; Philip's heir, Duke John, fell out with his father and refused to attend court for several months; Joan of Navarre, daughter of a previous king of France (Louis X), declared neutrality and signed a private truce with Lancaster.[126]" I think this should be broken up into at least two sentences.
 * You are quite right. I have broken it into four and I think that it reads better now.


 * " it being all but impossible to land a significant force other than at a friendly port." Yet Edward just did so, as I understand it. A little less definite?
 * Yes, I have expressed that poorly. Now "it being widely considered all but impossible to land …"


 * I might say a bit more about the terms of the Truce of Calais. I know there's a link, but given the level of detail you're going into, something might be said.
 * It is tricky to judge how much information is too much or too little for each area. I have tended towards being brief in those areas covered in their own articles, and providing more detailed information where it is not provided elsewhere on Wikipedia. I have quite possibly provided too much or too little information elsewhere.
 * I have expanded on the truce a little and included its main provisions. See what you think.


 * Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you ping me when it's ready to look at?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * . Many thanks for stopping by to look at this, and for the thorough review. Apologies for the time taken to get back to you. All of your points above now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support All looks good. Enjoyed the read.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

 * Suggest scaling up the battle map
 * Done.


 * File:BattleofCrécyVisualisation.svg: what is the source of the data represented by this image?
 * Well spotted. Thank you. Fixed.

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Nikkimaria, your points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, how do the images look now. Note that File:Philippe VI de Valois (cropped).jpg is new, although hopefully problem free. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Its tagging is redundant (we don't need life+70 when we already have PD-art with life+100), but that doesn't preclude passing. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nikkimaria, I shall note that for future reference. I wasn't sure, and it seemed best to be safe rather than sorry. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

~ Comments Support by CPA-5
Here we are again let me see what you got. ;)
 * Normandy, and stormed and sacked Caen Link Caen.
 * Done.


 * Derby, now Lancaster,[note 3]Sumption 1990, p. 476 Ehm what's this? Shouldn't the citation be in the note?
 * It should, it shoul. Fixed.


 * France, as he had been the previous autumn.[18][17] Fix numerical order.
 * Done.


 * extended to a requirement to also serve overseas.[26][24] Same as above.
 * Done.


 * a chevauchée, a large scale raid American large scale.
 * I am guessing that you would prefer 'large-scale'. Let me know if I am wrong.


 * After a furious argument with his advisors American advisors.
 * Oops. Thank you. Fixed.


 * routed and pursued for miles.[103][104]The French losses No space between the citations and the next sentence.
 * Sorted.


 * Also note one and three are totally the same.
 * Removed.

We're not done here
 * encamped at Poissy, 20 miles (32 km) from Paris This is the second time that the article uses "20 miles (32 km)" in the body.
 * Fixed.


 * A small force would sail for Brittany; Commanded by whom?
 * Who cares? IMO WP:IINFO applies.


 * extremely slow progress of the Genoese may have been Link Genoese.
 * Good idea, but I have linked Genoa at first mention instead. Is that ok?


 * River Somme overlinked.
 * Good spot. Corrected.


 * During March and April, over 1,000 long tons (1,000 t) Link long tons. No short tons?
 * Correct - no short tons.


 * total of 853 ships supported this force.[note 5][39] I believe both the note and citation should be switched.
 * Done.


 * Edward repopulated the town with English, and a few Flemings. [141] Remove space between the sentence and the citation.
 * Done.


 * The truce did not stop the on-going naval clashes Is on-going a word because some dictionaries say to me that that word doesn't exist?
 * No. Corrected.


 * Ref 9, pp. 455–57. --> pp. 455–457.
 * Ref 10, pp. 519–24. --> pp. 519–524.
 * Ref 12, pp. 461–63. --> pp. 461–463.
 * Ref 20, pp. 485–86. --> pp. 485–486.
 * All done.


 * Ref 27, is Table 5 really a page of that book?
 * No. It is a table on page 208 which contains the information referred to. If information referred to in a cite is in a footnote, table or map, it is the usual convention to indicate this, in addition to the page number.

Nice piece of paper. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And thank you for the use of your excellent eyes. Your points all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Now we're done here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * and your new points addressed. Good stuff there. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks great. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley
I'll look in again after a thorough perusal, but, before that, just a couple of points that caught my eye on a first canter-through.
 * Chevauchée – nowhere is the term explained (unless I've missed it). I'm not wild about peppering a lead with footnotes and citations, but I think I'd make an exception and bung in an explanatory footnote from the first sentence of the lead, explaining the term for them like me as doesn't know.
 * The word is explained at first mention in the article - "Edward's aim was to conduct a chevauchée, a large-scale raid, across French territory to reduce his opponent's morale and wealth." Is that insufficient?
 * It is entirely sufficient. I missed it on my first read-through. Sincere apols.  Tim riley  talk   13:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You twice have Edward succoring the Duke of Lancaster. Whether he suckered or succoured him I shall not be certain until I have read more thoroughly, but he certainly didn't succor him – a word unknown to the OED.
 * Fixed.
 * I just found out that Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries claim that the word "succor" is an American English word. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is little-known that Edward III held dual nationality, hence "succor" is arguably acceptable. Perhaps surprisingly, several of the more authoritative modern scholars of this topic are American and I tend to pick up their language without realising. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

More anon.  Tim riley  talk   10:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Nearly two weeks ago I jotted down a few points to raise, but I see they have all since been addressed by other editors and the nominator. The only thing I can still find to attempt a quibble about is the inconsistency in giving a comma to various French nobs: John Duke of Normandy, but Raoul, Count of Eu and Geoffroy de Harcourt, Viscount of Saint-Sauveur. This, as you may imagine, is not a sticking point, and I am happy to support promotion of this top-notch article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria.  Tim riley  talk   14:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I can't find a nob who hasn't already had his comma inserted Julian. Am I missing something? (There doesn't seem to be a "John Duke of Normandy".)
 * Thank you for your support. In case you are interested, my next FAC is scheduled to be Battle of Crécy. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahem! You're right, of course. Duke John of Normandy, not John Duke of Normandy, but (struggling to maintain a foothold in credibility) why is he that way round when the others aren't? (And, en passant, Round the Horne is of nante relevance here.) My support - back from the laundry - remains as firm as ever.  Tim riley  talk   15:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * If you can write a sentence containing the words nob, comma and insert without thinking of Julian, then you are a better man than I am, Gunga Din.
 * Duke John of Normandy deliberately written like that, so when I abbreviate it to Duke John it will be more recognisable. It having been pointed out that following the normal convention and referring to him as Normandy would be confusing. Alternative suggestions welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * None from me. I flee the field in disarray, having first firmly registered my support. I look forward to Crécy.  Tim riley  talk   20:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * No spotchecks carried out
 * Formats: There seems to be some inconsistency in the use of retrieval dates in the References list. Why the do Neillands and Williamson books need retrieval dates?
 * Removed.


 * Quality and reliability: I wonder if the online Encyclopædia Britannica is the best source for this information?
 * It seems a RS to me, but removed anyway.


 * Otherwise, the sources look to be comprehensive and of the appropriate scholarly quality in accordance with the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Brianboulton. Thanks for picking this one up. Your actionable points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I wondered if you feel that the sources now meet the FAC criteria? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * "It was a campaign of the Hundred Years' War, which began on 12 July 1346". This is confusing. I thought at first that you were saying that the Hundred Years' War started on that date. I suggest adding that the war was in support of the king's claim to the French throne, and then a new sentence about the start of the Chevauchée.
 * Good point. (The connection between the Hundred Years' War and Edward's claim to the French throne is probably beyond easy summary, and as the latter had nothing to do with the start of the former, or with this campaign, I have ducked it.}


 * "slaughtering the population" This is not supported in the main text, which says that 5000 were killed, but does not say all the people were slaughtered.
 * 5,000 was greater than the entire population of any English town apart from London; it was a (in)famous massacre. I don't think that slaughter implies a complete extermination. That said, I have cut right down on the areas where there is a separate article and may have overdone it. I have added a sentence to, hopefully, give a sense of the scale. What do you think?
 * I have always taken slaughter to mean the same as extermination but the dictionary supports your view. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "Philip's Great Council in Paris agreed that Gascony and Ponthieu should be taken back into Philip's hands on the grounds that Edward was in breach of his obligations as a vassal. This marked the start of the Hundred Years' War, which was to last 116 years." This is not my period, but was not the revival of Edward's claim to the French throne an important factor?
 * No. Didn't even come up until more than two years into the war. Very briefly, Edward claiming the French throne allowed him to recruit allies who had paid homage to Philip, or at least to the French king. They therefore weren't rebelling and so dishonoured, but upholding the claim of the "rightful" king. It was a transparent political manoeuvre which even Edward didn't seem to have a lot of time for. (Unlike his attitude to his claim to the Scottish overlordship.)


 * "English taxpayers were exhausted." I know what you mean, but this sounds an odd wording.
 * Well, they probably were. Good spot. Reworded.


 * "a year's income from all foreign benefices". What is meant by foreign benefices? English houses belonging to foreign monasteries or foreign houses belonging to English monasteries?
 * Ah. Good. The former. Tweaked.


 * "Chancellor of England". This should be linked.
 * It should, it should. Done.


 * "parliament". I think this should be capitalised as it refers to a specific body, although I know that editors often disagree about capitalisation.
 * I am happy to capitalise. Done.


 * "some limited financial commitments were made" To or by the northern counties?
 * Good point. To. Added.


 * "Despite Edward's efforts to obfuscate" You have not previously mentioned obfuscation.
 * True. I suspect that I am missing your point. I am not claiming that he continued to obfuscate. I am stating that he did obfuscate (unsuccessfully). How would you phrase it?
 * My point is that I would take your wording to imply that you have previously mentioned obfuscation. How about something like "Edward attempted to conceal his preparations from the French, but he was unsuccessful."
 * Rephrased as: "Despite English efforts to conceal their preparations, the French were aware of them." OK?
 * Fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "he opportunistically sailed due south" This sounds POV. I would delete "opportunistically".
 * Apologies, I missed this one. Rephrased to 'he changed his plans and sailed due south'. The source says "When the King changed his mind is uncertain; it may not have been until he finally sailed on 11 July, with the wind still unfavourable for a voyage down Channel". If this still seems unsatisfactory, let me know. I have also changed the same word in the lead.


 * "The towns of Cherbourg, Carentan, Saint-Lô and Torteval were destroyed". Were they really destroyed or just sacked? The article on Saint-Lô says that it was hit by the Black Death in 1347, so it must have survived.
 * Burnt to the ground. I used "destroyed" to distinguish from situations such as Caen, which was thoroughly sacked but not razed. The population of St Lo was, mostly, spared, so I assume that they spent most of the summer rebuilding. (Even Caen was hit by the Black Death, and probably less than 10% of the original population survived the English visit.) I could go with "razed", or "burnt to the ground", or "set on fire" if you prefer. There is source support for the use of "destroyed".
 * I would prefer "razed", or "burnt to the ground" to "destroyed".
 * Razed it is.


 * "On 14 August Normandy requested a formal suspension of the siege" I find it confusing to have him sometimes described as Duke John and sometimes as Normandy. It would be clearer if you kept to one name.
 * Well spotted. Thank you. I thought that I had weeded all of those. Gone. (And I have checked to ensure that there are no more.)


 * "Meanwhile, the Flemings, having been rebuffed by the French at Estaires" What does this mean? That the French defeated Hugh Hastings's Flemings at a place called Eataires?
 * Essentially yes. A very minor defeat. Reworded slightly to, hopefully, make things clearer.


 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for looking this over, and for your comments, which are all addressed above. I look forward to the next installment. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Your two follow up comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "These charges were disordered by their impromptu nature". This sounds wrong to me. Maybe "due to their impromptu nature".
 * Done.


 * "being on the closest point of France to the ports of south east England, already strongly defended, a secure harbour and possessing established port facilities. It was also close to the border of Flanders and Edward's Flemish allies." I had to read this twice as "strongly defended" appears to refer to the SE ports. For clarity I suggest moving "on the closest point of France to the ports of south east England" to the end of the sentence and starting the next sentence with "Calais" instead of "It".
 * Done


 * "Calais was strongly fortified; being surrounded by extensive marshes, some of them tidal, made it difficult to find stable platforms" This is ungrammatical.
 * Sorry, I can't see it. Could you point out just which bit is ungrammatical? Thanks.
 * There is no subject for "made it difficult". I suggest "which made it difficult". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Done.


 * "Joan of Navarre, daughter of a previous king of France (Louis X), declared neutrality". This is too telescoped. You need to explain that Joan was ruler and had previously supported France.
 * Done.


 * "1,000 long tons (1,000 t). I would link "long ton" and what does "1000 t" add here?
 * Linked; in my view nothing, but if I remove it will object. Possibly the pair of you could reach a consensus and let me know what it is? (IMO a simple "tons" would suffice at this very approximate level of accuracy, with no convertions at all.)


 * "Edward granted Calais numerous trade concessions or privileges" I do not think that the distinction between concessions and privileges will mean anything to most readers. I would either delete one or change to "concessions and privileges".
 * Changed.


 * "The English also suffered a pair of military setbacks" I would prefer "two military setbacks" "Pair" implies a connection between them, which does not appear to be what you are saying.
 * Done.


 * A first rate article.
 * Thank you. (In case you are interested, Battle of Crecy will be next up.)

Dudley Miles (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Dudley Miles. Your points addressed, including one query. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Grammar now, possibly, up to scratch. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Richard Nevell
I think we should be using a contemporary depiction of the French king rather than one from the 19th century. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Good point. A 16th century image is as far back as I seem to be able to push it. Will that do? It seems to be the commonest older image of him; it was even used as the basis for his image on a 20th century coin commemorating him. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The 16th-century depiction is certainly a step in the right direction, but what about File:Phil6france.jpg from c1336? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * *smile* That used to be my go to image for Philip, but in an earlier review of it (in a different article), it was suggested that it "needs more information or a better license, currently needs an author and date of death". As I don't really understand the comment, much less how to remedy the flaw, I took the easy way out. If you could point me in whatever direction I need to go I would be quite happy to undergo a learning experience. (I could also then reinsert it elsewhere. And not have to remove it from Battle of Crécy, which is due to be my next FAC up.)
 * That’s an awkward request since the BNF doesn’t provide info on the manuscript’s scribe, which would suggest it’s anonymous. Not knowing who produced it shouldn’t be a problem given its age. Afterall we don’t know the names or dates of death of the people who made the Bayeux Tapestry! I don’t see that we’re going to get a more accurate licence than public domain due to it being a work of art where the author died more than 100 years ago. Maybe it’s because Jean-Marie Perouse de Montclos is given as the source? It might have been scanned from the book, but the publisher won’t actually own the copyright, they’ll have got permission from the BNF. Helpfully their website says it’s public domain, though perhaps that’s just for the black and white version as some organisations claim a new copyright from the digitisation process. It’s ended up a little thornier than I expected, so I am happy to leave this to your editorial discretion! Richard Nevell (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a well-researched and detailed article. I've popped a few other thoughts below in brief.


 * Images We should be aiming for as near contemporary images as possible. At the moment there’s an 18th-century portrait of Edward III which could be replaced by his funeral effigy, portrait on a coin, or a manuscript drawing. Similarly, we have an 18th-century painting of Edward III crossing the Somme. There’s also a late 15th-century depiction of a siege. That’s close enough to the 14th century that I’m less concerned, but is there a particular aspect of the image which isn’t shown in a 14th century illustration? Keep an eye on the alt text as it’s easy to miss typos; the text for Philip VI’s portrait refers to him as Philip IV. The map showing the route of the English army is an excellent illustration. It might be worth noting on Commons where the information it’s based on comes from, like has been done with the Crécy visualisation.
 * Why should we be aiming for near contemporary images? And is that a personal preference or a Wiki-policy? Not arguing, or even necessarily disagreeing, just curious. (I was trying, this once, to get a spread of images over a few centuries, as a subliminal demonstration of the campaign's iconicness (iconicability?). But it was just a conceit; I am happy to change, in principle.)
 * That is an opinion rather than based in Wikipedia policy so I should explain my reasoning! It’s entirely reasonable to ask why I think we should use near contemporary images where possible. There are two main points the way I see it. Firstly, images reflect the understanding of the time period they were produced in. Hopefully readers will recognise that these aren’t literal depictions of events, and that even one produced in the 14th century isn’t going to be ‘accurate’ in a modern sense just because they were produced closer to the time of the events, but as historians communicating the past it gives a little nod towards how events were perceived at the time. Medieval artists had their own iconography to work with and tried to convey messages through their work, as did later artists. I don’t know much about West’s work, but (from quickly reading about him on Wikipedia) King George was a patron and while the French were working against England in the American Revolutionary War. That doesn’t take anything away from the artwork, but it brings a lot of baggage to the painting and layers of context to help understand it which aren’t directly relevant to Edward III’s 1346 campaign. Then there’s how people actually appear in paintings and the earlier you go in the Middle Ages the more egregious it gets, like a 17th-century artist showing William the Conqueror in plate armour. I’m not seeing something like that here, but… actually is there someone in gold armour on the French side? He seems to have fallen in front of the white horse. Secondly, because Wikipedia is ubiquitous, any images used here have the potential to be picked up and used anywhere else. Someone who’s not familiar with the differences between late medieval, early modern, or modern art might not realise the images aren’t medieval so as a minimum a date needs to be included, as you have done with the West painting. Even so, it makes it easier for others to take out of context. I rather like the idea of using the images to great an aesthetic showing that the campaign has sustained the interest of artists over time. That’s certainly valid, but I think it’s worth being explicit with that kind of thing. It is genuinely interesting that artists have returned to the subject over the centuries, and showing that through images is very powerful. My (entirely personal) preference would be to have broadly contemporary images at the start, and to have later depictions towards the end, probably in the aftermath section. That way the jump from text about an event in the 1340s to an artwork made centuries later is smoother as we’re looking at the legacy of the event. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I always put articles through the alt text viewer prior to nominating, but I am dreadful at regnal ordinals. I even have them on my checklist, but I still messed this one up. Thanks for picking it up.
 * (Edit clash) I don't disagree with much that you have written above, but, unsurprisingly, the detail is more complicated. There are of course the licencing issues which rule some preferred images. With a military history article the first third or so is background and prelude. 'Action images' are usually only appropriate at the top of the infobox - I usually try to make this a contemporary one; the balance are images of the leaders, as they are introduced, and perhaps a general map. So going with images as one goes through an article is rarely an option.:::I entirely take your point about the pros and cons of 14th century images. However, they are often the worst in terms of authenticity. They are almost never actually contemporary, but date to 40-50 years after the 1345-47 period that I have recently focused on. They typically depict troop types armoured as they were at the time the images were made; so anachronistic amounts and types of plate armour etc. More modern images are frequently more accurate in this, and, as you note, other, respects.:::All of this said, I would like to use more 14/15th century images, where they are available and suitably licenced. (Although I have a personal dislike of coins in most circumstances. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Structure Chevauchée isn’t defined until section 3.1. Since we’re introducing a term the average reader won’t have come across we need to define it as soon as possible, which in this case means the lead. At the moment, based on the first sentence a reader might reasonably conclude that a chevauchee is a type of march.
 * Well a chevauchee is a type of march, so I am not sure that it is a major issue. However, you are, obviously, correct that I have got too close and assumed understanding. I have tweaked the first sentence of the lead, what do you think?


 * Sourcing The sources are largely good, and Sumption is very detailed. Have you checked Hewitt’s The Organization of War Under Edward III, 1338-62 to see what relevant information could be added? Also, by a quick count of the 43 sources used only four have a female author which makes me wonder if there are gaps in the bibliography that haven’t been picked up on. Granted, some subjects have a better representation of female authors than others but worth checking. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hewitt - no. I confess that as the number of sources consulted went past three figures I encountered diminishing returns and a feeling that at some point I simply had to say "enough" and get on with the article. You may have noticed that I have made quite a few additions since it was nominated, as I was unable to stick to that resolution. As Hewitt is thematic rather than chronological it didn't make the cut for further study. A (very) brief skim doesn't suggest that was a mistake.
 * Female authors. I may well be missing your point here. 9% is pretty poor, although if you had asked me I would have named Anne Curry and then probably said she was the only female other. (Though isn't Corfis and Wolfe excellent? Corfis' sex had escaped me.) I am sure that there "are gaps in the bibliography", I would be an idiot to suggest otherwise, but I don't see how this relates to the author gender ratio; which possibly makes me an idiot anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * With the sourcing, I was using that as a quick check. There’s an imbalance in the number of female and male authors, so the question is whether it’s reflective of the literature on the subject or an unhappy coincidence. I think it’s probably the latter. At some point I’d like to upload bibliographic data on the Journal of Medieval Military History to Wikidata as Scholia can give a useful breakdown (eg) so it doesn’t have to be based on guesswork, but from an analogous area I’m interested in castle studies also struggles for gender balance amongst authors. 4 in 43 might not be too bad in context, but I thought it worth asking the question just in case. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. Having had a rerun through the literature I struggle to find anything of significance I have missed. In particular I can't find any women authors who would particularly add to the article. This may well be my missing them in the fairly vast literature, but if I am, I am. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Checking in to see if you have additional comments? -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Final comments
The article covers the political history and logistics of the campaign very well. I think a little development of the social history that's woven through there article would improve it further. The key points for me are:
 * Providing context that attacking non-combatants was not uncommon in medieval warfare;
 * Easily done.


 * Tweaking the language around destruction. Can we include more on the human cost of the campaign? So 5000 civilians and soldiers were killed at Caen, but what about the other villages and towns?
 * The 5,000 casualties at Caen is the only actual figure given by either "contemporary" or modern sources regarding civilian casualties. Chroniclers of the time were even less concerned by the number of dead civilians than they were by the non-man-at-arms dead in actual conflicts. (Given your background I am sure that you are aware of this.) With a couple of exceptions it is not recorded whether broadly the English looted material possessions and left the French citizenry alone, or killed everyone in their path. There are not even many records of the number of people or men or households in the places sacked, much less the villages around them. And where there are, one RS warns that figures were frequently fabricated by town fathers to minimise tax demands. I would like to put in something more specific on this, but unless you can point me at a new source, I don't think that I can.
 * What I can source is something brief on the civilian refugee issue.
 * I'm not too fussed by being able to quantify the number of dead (and would be suspicious of an estimate) but if we can find a way to emphasise the impact on people that would be good. A shame that the sources don't differentiate between people and property, but I'm not surprised. It probably says something about the world-view of the people writing at the time. Which leaves in a slightly tricky position, but I think adding something on the refugee situation would be worthwhile. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A bit on the refugee situation added.


 * Also, the section does a good job of outlining the impact of the campaign on objects but what do we mean by 'razed'? My own research examines the destruction of castles in the Middle Ages and while the term 'razed' is sometimes used the destruction isn't as total as the word might lead readers to assume.
 * If you look above, you will see that the term "razed" was introduced at the request of an earlier reviewer. But they were making, I think, a similar point. I have changed "razed" to 'set fire to', 'set on fire' and 'burnt'; is that ok by you?
 * That makes it a bit clearer (not least because it tells us about the method). Richard Nevell (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * On a related note, isn't a scorched earth policy about  destroying potential food supplies to deny them to an enemy rather than carrying them off?
 * Right. The logistics of devastation. Firstly, Edward and his commander's priority was (obviously) gathering sufficient supplies to feed their horses and men (in that order). Destroying crops, orchards etc in situ is extremely time consuming, not to mention more work than most pre-modern soldiers could be persuaded to do unless closely supervised. The way to wreck countryside as a food generating resource is to slaughter the peasantry, but this is also easier said than done, population can be relatively readily moved in from elsewhere, and anyway there is no clear record that this happened: also see above. And peasants routinely hid as much food as they could, to avoid the gaze of their lords, their priests, tax collectors and bandits. What "devastation" as recorded in the chronicles probably meant - touch of OR here - is that: every movable valuable, which includes livestock and significant food stocks, was stolen, despoiled or killed; an unknown proportion of the unknown proportion of the populus who didn't get away were raped, tortured and/or killed; every building, including the ecclesiastical, was set on fire. But the chronicles say "devastated", I have followed suit. I have a reasonable mental picture of what this means, but no "contemporary" nor modern source to (clearly) back it up.
 * That's fair enough. I had in mind the sentence at the start of the 'March north' section: In anticipation of such a move, the French had carried out a scorched earth policy, carrying away all stores of food and so forcing the English to spread out over a wide area to forage, which greatly slowed them. 'Scorched earth policy' is very evocative, but I wonder if that phrase could be dropped as the sentence explains what the French did in any case. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sensible. Done.


 * Discussing contemporary reception. If entire towns and villages were swept up in the destruction, this may well have affected churches, so how did the Church react? In a later chevauchee Edward III mandated that churches should be spared from destruction, which indicates earlier campaigns may not have been so selective. Is there a juicy quote from a chronicler that could be added in?
 * Edward issued orders from the start to spare ecclesiastical property, and on one occasion had several archers hanged for burning down a monastery. However, this was almost completely ignored; eg before the army had even set off from St. Vaast la Hogue the Abbay of Notre-Dame du Vœu, a foundation of Matilda, daughter of Henry I of England, was burnt down by Englishmen for the third time in 50 years. However, so far as the medieval and modern sources are concerned, this all seems to have been acceptable collateral damage. Clement complained bitterly about Christians fighting each other when they should be crusading, and in a more token fashion objected to Edward's forced loans on foreign benefices and Philip's stripping of churches of plate, but not about the looting and burning of churches etc during the chevauchee.
 * Back to your point. I could insert something about Edward's token order to spare ecclesiastical property, its ineffectiveness, using the Abbey of Notre-Dame du Vœu as an example; and working in the role of the Bishop of Durham, commander of Edward's rearguard, as an enthusiastic looter of churches.
 * Including that detail would be great. I think the reader will be interested in it, I certainly am! Richard Nevell (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * Those are the key bits, but I'd also suggest that when discussing the proclamation from Philip discovered when the English captured Caen it should be made explicit that it was significant because people back in England had stopped seeing a point in the war. It's mentioned earlier that Edward faced problems with support, and a reader going through the whole piece will be able to join the dots, but some readers might miss it or have only read this section so best to make it clear that it's a callback.
 * Umm. I actually fudged this a bit, if you read what I wrote carefully. Edward tried to use this to rouse popular sentiment - it is difficult to judge if he actually thought this would work. It didn't graetly. The French would despoil the south coast of England if they got the chance, as they had been doing throughout the war to date. Quelle surprise. The tipping point was the unprecedented victory at Crécy, and the French receiving a sound thrashing; that rallied support - as I hope I make clear. I get your general point, I think. I dislike leading the reader too much, but I could go through (re)emphasising the effect on the 'home front' of both monarchs' successes and failures.
 * In that case I'd be happy to leave it as it is. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Left as is.

Once that's tackled, I'd be happy to support this fine article. Apologies if anything is garbled or unclear, I'm writing this comment from my phone. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Richard Nevell, thanks for the thoughtful suggestions. I haven't made any changes yet. See what you think of my responses above and could you reply to my three queries in blue? Once we have agreed what I am adding or amending I will do it all in one set of edits. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Richard Nevell, I have, I think, addressed all of your actionable points above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I reckon you have. I've switched to support and thank you for your patience and perseverance with the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks for the input Richard, the article is the better for it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Query to coordinators
Hi all. To me it looks as if this one will be wending its way shortly, so I wondered if I might have permission to nominate my next one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mmm, I see the article has been moved not once but several times during this FAC. I moved it back to what I thought was the original name but it wasn't, and in fact moving back to the actual original (Chevauchée of Edward III (1346)) seems to be disallowed, but perhaps an admin like or Andy could do so we can just close this under the original name, let FACBot do its thing in peace, and then the current move discussion can continue and the article be re-moved to its heart's content... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a tag on top of the page that says I should not. And given the current fraught atmosphere on WP the past three weeks, I'd rather avoid any admin actions that might prove controversial.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd have thought the instruction not to move until the discussion finishes means not to move to the proposed page name, rather than not to move back to the original page name so as to close the FAC more smoothly, but I wouldn't press you to do anything that makes you unconformable., given the article name and the FAC details are out of whack, do I take I'll need to get everything here in sync with the current article name to permit FACBot to do its thing, or have you made allowances in the code for this sort of thing? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The Bot makes some allowances, but it's always best to have everything consistent.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)