Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347/archive1

Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347

 * Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

An overarching article for a period of the Hundred Years' War where a lot happened - little of it to French benefit. Much of it became known as the English King's annus mirabilis. Francophile readers may wish to look away. This article attempts to summarise a number other articles, set them in context and fill the gaps between them. No doubt I have done all of these imperfectly and I look forward to your pointing out the specifics of this to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Image review—pass no licensing issues found. Some maps could be scaled up for increased readability (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley
Just booking my place. More anon. Looking forward to this.  Tim riley  talk   16:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a substantial (and excellent) article, and I shall need more than one go at commenting on it. First go:
 * Lead
 * "commenced an offensive" – "commenced" is a bit refained. Perhaps began, launched or started?
 * Done.
 * "counterattacked Derby's forces" – the OED hyphenates "counter-attack"
 * Done.


 * Gascon campaign
 * "tie down most of the weak French garrisons in the region" – ambiguous: did they fail to tie down the strong ones or were all the garrisons weak?
 * Is a response of "yes" acceptable? Fixed.


 * Derby's offensive
 * "defeating them in a running battle" – this is very properly blue-linked to the article on the battle, but though I have often seen the phrase "running battle" I'm not actually sure how such a battle is to be distinguished from a non-running one, and would be glad of an explanation in the text or as a note.
 * I shall need to see how the sources describe it.
 * Rewritten, to be a little less summary but hopefully a lot more readily imagined.
 * "Within days of the battle, Bergerac fell" – unexpected AmE-style comma
 * As you will be aware, I have little truck with the silly fashion for inserting a comma after any mention of time, but in this case it seems necessary for the flow; I find it impossible to read, much less speak, the sentence without pausing there - hence the comma. Is that just me?
 * That's the nice thing about BrE: commas like this are neither compulsory nor taboo, and if you feel one helps the flow here I'm not going to complain.  Tim riley  talk   20:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "several strongpoints on the way" – the OED makes "strong points" two separate words. Occurs again later in the text.
 * Done.


 * Crécy campaign
 * "many ships deserted. They also captured" – perhaps "the English also captured" rather than the deserting ships doing so?
 * Ah! Fixed. ("The fleet also ...")


 * Battle of Crécy
 * "These charges were disordered due to their impromptu nature" – "due to" is not accepted in the Queen's English as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to". "Because of" would be better.
 * I know this, but I can't help myself. Fixed.

I am enjoying reviewing this article. More tomorrow, I hope. –  Tim riley  talk   19:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Second and concluding lot of comments:
 * Battle of Crécy
 * "disordered due to their impromptu nature" – another "due to" used as a compound preposition.


 * Fall of Calais
 * "In late-April" – not sure this wants a hyphen
 * Gah! Removed.


 * Aftermath
 * "England had lost all of its territory in France" – we don't need the "of" surely?
 * Removed
 * "Calais was finally lost following the 1558 siege of Calais." – the repetition of Calais is rather an anticlimactic end to your narrative. Would "… the 1558 siege of the town" suffice?
 * It would. Thank you.


 * Notes
 * You seem to have two conflicting methods of citing these four notes: the first two cite Sumption inline; the second two cite Sumption and Lambert in the Citations section. Best be consistent, I think.
 * How odd. I had missed that. Now fixed.

That's my lot. All very minor quibbles. –  Tim riley  talk   13:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks indeed Tim, for helping to translate this into English from whatever argot I write in. All done, I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * An excellent article, as we have come to expect from this source. Clearly meets all the FA criteria in my view, and I support its elevation to FA.  Tim riley  talk   20:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass
Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Formatting
 * Can't see issues with the ccitations section
 * I think I understand your location naming logic? Could you briefly clarify? Also why "Conn.", seems out of nowhere to abbreviate
 * I only add to the bare place name if it seems clear that an intelligent reader would not be able to otherwise identify it. You are quite right about Conn. Expanded.


 * Recommend OCLC for Fowler, see here
 * Added


 * Why "Fowler, Kenneth" vs "Fowler, Kenneth Alan"?
 * That is how they are given in the thesis and book respectively. Would you prefer me to tweak the former, rather than use the form given?
 * I wasn't sure if that was the reason, but since it is, it seems fine Aza24 (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Should probably be "Penguin Books" in Rodger
 * Done.


 * Is there a reason for both "Boydell & Brewer" and "Boydell Press"? I think the latter was merged in the 70s, so unless you're using books from then, they should all presumably be the former?
 * "Boydell Press" is what WorldCat has. Both for this and for other 21st C volumes.
 * Got it, lets definitely trust WC on this one then


 * Also Rodgers is the only time you have just "Woodbridge" for the location (as opposed to "Woodbridge, Suffolk")
 * Oops. Fixed.


 * You author-link Omrod twice, but don't do so for other repeated authors in the biblio
 * My error. De-linked at second mention.


 * It should probably be clarified that the dnb source is from the Edward III article. Perhaps "Edward III: Crécy and Calais, 1346–1347"? Or alternatively you could just have it be "Edward III" and then for the short foot note do "loc=Crécy and Calais, 1346–1347".
 * Quite right. I have gone with your first suggestion.


 * Fowler, Kenneth (1961) seems to need an account for the link, so maybe a url-access= parameter for it?
 * Good news - you don't need to register to access a thesis; bad news, they don't actually have this one, despite me thinking I downloaded my copy from there. No, any link anywhere to the thesis seems to have disappeared (odd and frustrating - I have used it for half a dozen FAs) so I have removed the link.


 * Hardy link is dead for me, there is an archive available ([https://web.archive.org/web/20210626012324/http://1.droppdf.com/files/wLXco/robert-hardy-longbow.pdf, which I recommend adding to the citation
 * Thanks, added.


 * Reliability
 * No issues, all from established publishers or authors. The dissertation is a PhD so should be usable
 * And the PhD was by a now Emeritus Professor of Medieval History!


 * Verifiability
 * 57 – good
 * 68 – good
 * 73 – good
 * 74 – good
 * Given the above and nominators experience, I see no reason for further spot checks. Aza24 (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough source review, clearly I have been getting sloppy. All of your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, and 'sloppy' is an overstatement, I have seen much worse :) – Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Funk

 * I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Since the Norman Conquest of 1066, English monarchs had held titles and lands within France" Why, because they descended from the Normans?
 * To simplify a bit, yes. But that is unnecessary detail. If you want I could abbreviate to 'Since 1066', but that seems to beg "What happened in 1066?"
 * Wouldn't have to be anything detailed, but if accurate, I think something like "through inheritance" alone would greatly clarify it for lay readers with minimal additional text. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah. Good point. I have tweaked the opening to "Since the Norman Conquest of 1066, English monarchs had held titles and lands within France by inheritance. Their possession made them vassals of the kings of France." Better?


 * I wonder if the particular scope of the article is defined by the sources, or if it is a somehow arbitrarily delineated interval?
 * The period between the recommencement of hostilities after Philip ended the Truce of Malestroit and the Truce of Calais is used by scholars, but usually in a general, difficult to cite way - eg as a chapter or section header. Edward's Annus Mirabilis is commonly cited, usually meaning from the Battle of Bergerac to that of Neville's Cross. (Yes, that covers thirteen-and-a-half months, but allowing time for news to reach England from France it almost works, and I suppose it was just too pat for anyone to get fussy.) I considered naming the article that, and would still have no objections, but running it back a little to the start of Lancaster's expedition and extending the end to the conclusion of the siege of Calais and the truce seemed more natural, and matched rhe timing in the Wiki-template.
 * Might almost be tempting to bold "Edward III's annus mirabilis" in the intro then, as I guess this is the article that covers that as a subject too? FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I have done that, let's see what other reviewers make of it.


 * Normandy seems to be linked twice, but with two different destinations.
 * Good spot. Thanks. Anachronism removed.


 * Link cannibalism?
 * ! You think that many readers won't know what it means?
 * They would, but that article has many other examples of war-time cannibalism for context (almost worthy of an article?), I think that subject is pretty interesting in itself. But no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * "found willing listeners in September and by the 28th a truce" Could we get the year here for context? I guess this is the natural cut-off point I was asking about earlier.
 * It is, it is. Good point. Rephrased to stress the date a little.


 * "which served as an English entrepôt into northern France for more than two hundred years." Doesn't seem to be stated explicitly in the relevant part of the article body.
 * Very good point. The role of Calais post-siege expanded on.


 * Hi FunkMonk, and thanks for that. Most helpful. Your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Cheers FunkMonk, both done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - looks nice to me. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from PM
Great to see this period pulled together so well, Gog. I have a few comments:
 * the infobox has an end date of 3 August 1347, but the truce was agreed on 28 September 1347? This also poses a question for where the Aftermath section should start.
 * Good question. I am treating the article as based on the English offensives (and partially as an extended version of Edward's annus miralilis). Tend to end this period with the fall of Calais, with the truce as a sort of afterthought. But that is more my take than anything I could point at and cite. What are your thoughts on this.
 * In general I would think periods of campaigning begin with first shots and end with an armistice, rather than the last action of the campaign. This isn't a war-stopper, just seems incongruous to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Changed.

already in the background?
 * "Although Gascony was the cause of the war" doesn't really follow. In territorial terms, Ponthieu as well, presumably?
 * Actually not. I can't find a source saying that Ponthieu was forfeited, and it was a recent acquisition, not a centuries old patrimony. And Gascony generated 40-50% of the English Crown's peacetime income, making its status a more pressing matter.
 * I think you need to explicitly state why it was the cause of the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As in"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."
 * I don't think so. You have explained above (but not in the article to this point) that Gascony was important to England for economic reasons, and stated in the article that Gascony was the cause of the war, but you haven't connected the dots in the article between Gascony's economic importance to England as the underlying reason why Gascony was the cause of the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Peacemaker, I keep coming back to this, looking at it, thinking it over, not getting anywhere, and putting it to one side for a couple of days. I'm going to time out if I don't break the cycle. What the RSs say is what I have said in the article. It can't be that bad, as it is my boiler plate introduction to more than a dozen FAs, including several you have reviewed. When sources go into more detail, they tend to do into a lot of detail. Eg Sumption's The Hundred Years' War takes 184 pages to get to the French Great Council meeting. Given that this is deep background I am reluctant to go into the dozen or more areas that led to an increase in tension and eventually to the two countries stumbling into war. Even if I could summarise them, reviewers would keep wanting a bit more detail on each, and they would take over the article. So I write " Following a series of disagreements" to summarise this. The sources all agree that, with hindsight anyway, the threshold that moved things from armed hostility to non-campaigning war was Philip's repudiation of Edward as a vassal and "confiscation" of Aquitaine (Gascony) - without going into further detail as to why this should be a declaration of war. Sumption for example, after 183 pages of background, gives this fewer words than I have just in this response. (I could email it to you.)
 * Apologies if this doesn't address your point, but I seem to have lost track of what it is. As you can probably tell, I am having something of a mental block on this.
 * As a reality check I have just reread Wagner's Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War entry on "Hundred Years' War, Causes of". A partial quote "The immediate cause of the war is generally taken to be PHILIP VI’s confiscation of Aquitaine in May 1337, but the roots of the dispute over the duchy, which is considered by some historians to be the key to the entire war, extend back to the eleventh century when William, duke of NORMANDY, became king of England". He then goes on to summarise 300 years of Franco-English relations. Wagner's article is probably as decent a short summary as there is. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is going to resolved. I'm happy to put it aside, as others haven't got hung up on it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "whenever an English army campaigned on the continent it operated in northern France" when was this?
 * Added.


 * wasn't the Truce of Malestroit about Brittany? What is the connection with South-western France?
 * As so often when one digs, things were not so simple. To quote Wagner in "On 19 January, representatives of the two kings signed a truce in the Church of St. Mary Magdalene in Malestroit. Although the agreement gave Vannes to the pope, who was to hold it for Philip until expiration of the truce, its terms were generally favorable to Edward. Both kings retained their current holdings in Brittany, FLANDERS, AQUITAINE, and SCOTLAND". AQUITAINE in this context means SW France. Icould give more detail if you wish.
 * Perhaps summarise that in a single sentence? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Peacemaker, I have been staring at this, and have no objections to making changes, but am struggling to see what they might be that would address your concern and also improve the article. I write "but as the Truce of Malestroit, signed in early 1343, was still in effect, the local lords were reluctant to spend money and little was done." I could add something like 'which forbade fighting between the French and the English', but it seems hugely redundent to me. If you disagree, let me know and I'll add it. Or if you are after something else, could you unpack it a little for my Christmas fodder slowed brain? Cheers.
 * Nah, forget it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * on second mention, should it be just "l'Isle-Jourdain" or "de l'Isle-Jourdain"?
 * It should. Fixed. (In a previous discussion you persuaded me to skip the leading de, but not d'.)

Down to 1346. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * link Aiguillon to Aiguillon, Lot-et-Garonne at first mention
 * Done.


 * south east→south-east IAW previous hyphenation of sub-cardinal directions
 * Not done. I use south west, unhyphenated, except when a hyphen is required because south-west is used as a compound modifier.
 * OK. Presumably that is a style guide thing? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have always considered it a normal variety of English. It is only since I have been editing Wikipedia that I have noticed widespread uses of other variants.


 * instead of Note 2, could you go with "the Earl of Lancaster, previously the Earl of Derby," and dispense with Note 1?
 * Good thinking. Tweaked.


 * "burning every town they passed" and "razed every town in their path" is a bit repetitive. Perhaps for the latter, "Beyond the razing of towns, his soldiers also looted the populace of whatever they could." would be better?
 * The destruction of the towns was arguably more important than thefts from individuals, and the sources put stress on it. I have left the first mention ("burning every town they passed") and changed the second to "... to reduce his opponent's morale and wealth by razing his towns and stealing the populace's portable wealth." Does that work?
 * Sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * the second and third paras of the Crecy campaign section are chronologically mixed. Would it be possible to integrate them better?
 * Bleh! No idea what I was thinking. Actually it was a real mess. I have shuffled things around and I think that the chronology now flows.
 * Much better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * what is Jonathan Sumption?
 * An ex-member of the UK Supreme Court. Added.


 * same as point above re: "ports of south east England"
 * Amended.


 * " Philip's heir, Duke John, fell out with his father" we already know he was his heir
 * Done.

Down to 1347. More to come, tomorrow probably. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * suggest linking mercenary
 * Done.


 * "A Flemish force of 20,000" presumably English allies?
 * Clarified.


 * link materiel?
 * Done.


 * "partly because of the unexpected timing of the need"? what need? He had launched the raids himself.
 * He launched some minor opportunistic raids. He had not expected Philip to recall the French army. He was correct in this, the army failed to effectively reassemble. It seems clear to me, but I could readily add this detail. Or more?
 * Yes, I think it needs to be explained. "partly because he had not expected Philip to recall the French Army in response to his raids" (or WTTE) would do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Tweaked.


 * "Two cardinals acting as papal emissaries found the kings to be more willing listeners" more willing? Had they tried before?
 * Ah, edited out as I tried for a more summary style. Tweaked.


 * "the Flemish were confirmed in their de facto independence" seems to be new information not introduced in the body?
 * Indeed. Most of the aftermath is new information. Am I missing your point?
 * There is no hint earlier that Flemish independence was threatened, so it just begs a question "what threat". Is it really necessary, if so, then I think the threat to Flemish independence needs tro be explicitly mentioned at the point in the chronology that it is first raised during the campaign. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have expanded their first substantial mention to "It was also close to the border of Flanders; which was nominally part of France, but in rebellion, allied to the English and willing to send troops to assist Edward."

That's me done. Great work thus far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent Peacemaker, your usual insightful review. All of your comments responded to, a couple with counter-queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, always a pleasure Gog. A couple of responses above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Peacemaker, your come backs all addressed, at least one with a further query. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year Peacemaker. Just a reminder in case this one had slipped off your radar. If it hadn't and other things are occupying you then, obviously, no worries. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, supporting now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Serial
Back once again with the renegade master. I was looking for something HYW-related, so this is a serendipitous find. A few comments/suggestions.
 * How about a map showing territorial positions at the beginning of the period (base on somthing like this., what think you of the MOS:CONTRAST of that image?
 * Not great, although it could potentially be supplemented with an explanatory caption. (Firefox includes an accessibility feature in its devtools that allows you to simulate different types of colour blindness - useful for cases like this). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something? I already use that map in Background.
 * Testing, testing!


 * The reader encounters an image of Philip immediately, but needs must get halfway down the page before he encounters one of Ed?
 * And so? (There isn't a convenient place to put it any higher up. It needs to be on the left.)
 * And so, multiple image is your friend; see, for example,.
 * Done.


 * Should annus mirabilis  be bolded? It is not, later on; suggest the Latin template.
 * I am indifferent, but see reviewer's point above. That template is used at the only other mention.
 * I probably shouldn't have distracted things by mentioning that template, the MOS point is that foreign terms are italicised rather than bolded: MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.
 * ? I know that. The lang template is used.


 * A couple of things. Firstly, it effectively states the same thing twice in a row, if broken by /PARA, and secondly, I don't see the connection between the war starting in any location and the need for its funding. (I.e., the war needs to be funded due to the fact of its starting rather than where it started) so perhaps something like or the like.
 * Edward could spare lots of resources for the war, just not for Gascony. I think the current wording explains things well - I am enboldened by it having survived ore than half a dozen prior FACs - so could you unpack your objections to it a little more for me? Ta.
 * , yes, that would help.
 * You are losing me a little here. Going back to your first comment re "I don't see the connection between the war starting in any location and the need for its funding" I think most readers would see an issue over a war being started to retain a region and then few resources being sent to it to actually defend it. Re your last comment, you are losing me a bit. Would "Although Gascony was the cause of the war, Edward spared few resources for it" do the trick? Ie, It was Edward's conscious choice.


 * + "the same year"?
 * Done.


 * Derby and Stafford are identified by their first names + title, the seneschal by his full name, but Northampton is just Northampton?
 * Done.


 * Mention of the Treaty of Malestroit in 1343 is slightly jarring, since the reader has recently been told of a Treaty of Espléchin three years before that?
 * Really? Each mention of each treaty states the year it was agreed. A reader will, surely, expect the Background to be a rapid run through, and not jarred that two paragraphs on in a new sub-section events have moved on chronologically.


 * "; by this time it was impossible..."?
 * I can't find this quote. When I do, what is the issue with it?
 * Ah, the quote is actually, apologies.


 * Malestroit encore! If it was tenuous, though, should it be introduced as such the first time (perhaps with a hint as to why also).
 * I can't do that without jumping around chronologically. When it was signed it wasn't intended to be tenuous. Nor, probably, expected to be. It only became so later, which seems an appropriate point to mention it.
 * Serious question, when you say "why", do you mean that, or 'the ways in which it was'?
 * Both, really; but I accept that that may be a level of detail suited to their individual articles rather than per summary style.


 * ; Stafford marched north to nearby-Blaye, where he left the Gascons to besiege the town. Stafford himself proceeded..."?
 * "Stafford himself" is a no-no. At least for me. I mean, who else could he be?
 * True; but how to address the repetition of be/siege three times in ~20 words?
 * Ah. We now have one "besiege" and one "a second siege". Better?


 * Any examples of the "several minor nobles" who joined the English?
 * Too much detail. I could readily include some, but who cares?
 * Nobody cares until its too late.


 * "force" might be better here, since it was clearly the last thing Philip wanted, or was able to satisfy (talking of which, tell the reader "although to no avail" perhaps?)
 * But they weren't "forced", I can think of several other things they could have done. Leaving aside the question of it not being supported by the sources. "to no avail" added.


 * "to increase their mobility," > "for increased mobility"?
 * I think that the first version spells it out a little better for the uninitiated.
 * And, presumably, the immobile.


 * I suggest omitting "was", which changes the tense slightly.
 * Good point. Done.


 * This section could do with a couple of dates to anchor the chronology; suggest dating the battle of Bergerac here and Duke John's mustering his army (if that's different to the October date that follows).
 * The date of Bergerac is unknown, other than that it was in August, which I already give. I have added something for the muster, it would almost certainly have occurred over weeks or months. I have added the year at the start.


 * This is slightly ambiguous; were they occupied with besieging English-held castles or tied up in defending those besieged by the English?
 * Tweaked.


 * Anyone we know?
 * Yes, but who cares. If I name checked every commander in every battle in the article it would bore the average reader silly. Want more detail? Read the next article down - Gascon campaign of 1345. Or the one on the actual battle. (They're all quite good. ;-) )


 * Not just of the alliteration, but wouldn't "surviving French soldiers rallied..." be simpler and without loss?
 * Indeed. Done.


 * Introduce Perigaux as regional capital on its mention in the previous sentence.
 * Oops. Done.


 * "In March 1346..." > In March that year; or even, just March.
 * Done.


 * "On 2 April " > the following day.
 * I made this change, but it then read as if the two were connected, or the first caused the second. So I reverted. I take your point, but do you have any other suggestions for rephrasing? Otherwise what we have may be the least bad.
 * Fair point re causality.


 * suggest adding the month si it can tie in with the chronology of the previous section.
 * Done.


 * slightly ambiguous to whom these ports are friendly; suggest "but with friendly ports in..." or some such.
 * Subtle. Done.


 * ; honestly, someone's going to slap a why template on that! Could you briefly explain the link between relying on a big navy and the failure of current technology? (I assume it means something like, however many ships one had they were never sufficient to patrol the entire channel and they had no other technological aids to do so?)
 * Fair. Tweaked.


 * at 747 ships?
 * I am missing your point. (Er, or are you suggesting that I add "at"? If so, in the name of grammar, why?)


 * our own (your own!) excellent article suggests the figure was nearer half; perhaps "around half the pop was massacred..."
 * You shouldn't believe the tosh they write on Wikipedia. Good point. Half plus one? No? Changed to "Much".


 * Using "mi" abbreviation in the prose. Surely the main use spelt out in full and the abbrv used in the conversion? (I'm sure you're correct, but if you could link to the supporting MOS section I'll know for next time.)
 * I just a hack writer and simply bung numbers into the templates. But the MoS opines "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same measurement, provide a conversion in parentheses. Examples: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long. See undefined undefined "
 * Yeeeeas... I see miles is spelled out in full there, and only km abbreviated? (I assume length?) Odd disparity.


 * Note 1: indicate that the earldom of Lanc was the senior title to Derby.
 * A detail for his bio, not an article where he gets a walk on part.


 * but the previous date mentioned was ten days before this one.
 * Tweaked.


 * "several times the size of the English force" to lose the duplicate "large/r".
 * The duplication is deliberate.
 * Hack wordsmithery!
 * Hey, it was got me more bronze stars than you could point a pointy thing at.


 * A link, "pits dug by..." would be a fine thing.
 * I don't believe that pits are weapons. Nor apparently does Area denial weapon, which does not mention them.
 * Meh. It literally says
 * That has to be the least helpful link I have ever included, but done.


 * Two "the modern historian"s together; one—the unlinked Ayton, perhaps—could be "the medievalist".
 * Divine favour.
 * Done. (Although personally I think it pushes WP:OVERLINK past breaking point.


 * requiring supplies and reinforcements which he expected from where to the north?
 * Ah ha. Good spot. Lost in my boiling down. Removed.


 * "And burned several towns"?
 * Er, yes? (If you mean what I think you might, I have "burning town" two sentences later and wish to avoid "burnt ... towns ... burning town".


 * --> arrival? (And presumably departure?)
 * Possibly, but from a military PoV the former was what was important.


 * ...and convinced that Edward had finished...
 * Reading the whole sentence, that doesn't work.


 * ...or "had collapsed..."? It seems difficult to see how much less the main gauche could know about what the main droite was doing!
 * Ah, reread Clausewitz. I prefer it as is.
 * For this period, your bible would be Vegetius.


 * Your treatment of Neville's Cross seems, perhaps, slightly sparse compared to sat Crécy? I mean, it's true that WP:RANDY is far more likely to have heard of one rather than the other, but strategically they were on a par (WP:DUE, etc).
 * No they weren't! Where'd you get that from. The Scots were out for loot and would have buggered off come what may with a few monasteries more or less looted. Crécy was, well, Crécy. I think WP:DUE is about right. I have no particular objections to expanding Neville's a little, although the Scottish tactics were unimaginative to the point of there not being much to say, but "strategically they were on a par" - pah!


 * What probability of convincing a militarist that, by the late middle ages, a lawyer was important than a soldier?! :p
 * Is it just me, or does read slightly...odd? We can't do anything about our coding, of course, but it looks bizarre! (although I see it ties in with my comment above re. abbreviations.)
 * If I were to start listing all the things in the MoS that looked odd to me ...
 * This is a classic line and worth mentioning in despatches.
 * And it is highly encyclopedic! :-)


 * Could probably link cannibalism?
 * Argh! Why? You think a reader won't know what it means? (An earlier reviewer made the same suggestion.)


 * entrepôt is linked for the third time here.
 * D'oh! Removed.


 * Is there anything you can link to regarding the fall of France in `1453, or at least that Lancastrian era of the war?
 * Not that I can readily see, this side of Easter-egging, but I am open to suggestions.
 * After an hour's ceaseless searching á la Lord Percy Percy, we do have Hundred Years' War, 1415–1453 as a standalone article.
 * And added.


 * Nice work as usual Gog, maintaining a simple, but effective WP:SUMMARY of the overarching narrative. ——  Serial  18:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers,, just what it needed - a damn good kicking. (FAC has missed you.) All of your points addressed. Note that some responses are queries and some are "Hell, no!" Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay in getting back to you here —I got a bit bogged down elsewhere, which involved a massively complex timeline and concomitant trolling at the WP:VPT, which was mildly distracting and hardly conducive to that Chimera we call a 'collegial editing environment'. I hope my replies here range from the usefully sardonic to the "Who the hell is this guy" :p  and  I look forward to supporting this article's promotion. Cheers!   SN54129  14:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Once more into the breach, etc. (I never did like those choices; what would a rational army do?) At last, some responses. @Who the hell is this guy Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Edmund, "those people over there, they're not fighting, they're just lying down". Happy to support.  SN54129  06:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Coord note
It looks like you still haven't responded to Peacemaker's comments on 5 January and Serial's on 11 January. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Given four supports and source and image passes, could I have permission to nominate a further article? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Go ahead (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I was going to promote this, but I realized I have a nitpick that should be fixed first: "The English army is estimated by modern historians to have been some 10,000 strong". The problem with "modern historians" is that it is probably not verifiable that most or all modern historians agree; see WP:RS/AC. So I would rephrase this slightly to avoid that implication, it would be OK to write "The English army was about 10,000 strong" or something to that effect. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Changed.


 * You will have noticed that I have reverted your unilateral edit to the article. As this is at FAC, it would seem appropriate that the pros and cons of wording be discussed here, and that other reviewers have the opportunity to opine. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * can I ask what further needs doing with this one? It has had five supports and source and image passes for some time. I believe that is recused, so perhaps  or  could have a look at it? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Was gonna promote yesterday, but got exposed to COVID while traveling for work, so that threw things off a bit. Hog Farm Talk 18:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis
This article at first glance looks neat and detailed! If my comments are resolved, I'll strike for support.  Gerald WL  09:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, that is excellent stuff and thank you. I think that I have addressed all of your comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem man, and the article looks more fit for FA now for me. Technically there are a couple of stuff you missed in my comms, but I rereviewed them and at its root there's no problem with those. Support.  Gerald  WL  01:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for the support. You are quite right, I missed a couple - apologies. Seine mow linked. Linking tonnes - that is done by the template, which is very widely used - and I am loath to mess with it unless pressed very hard. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hog Farm Talk 18:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)