Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lancaster's Normandy chevauchée of 1356/archive1

Lancaster's Normandy chevauchée of 1356

 * Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

My first Hundred Years' War FAC for over a year - how time flies. A brief campaign typical of those of this phase of the war and for which there are unusually detailed records. It is fresh from GAN and I believe it to be up to FAC standards. As ever, any and all constructive criticism is welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review and source review—pass
Image licensing looks good. Sources look OK but I still have to do a full source check (the Rogers 1994 ref is OK though) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Checking Wagner refs
 * Wagner 2006c. Needs pg#
 * Added.


 * Wagner 2006a, p. 20. This pg# must be wrong because it doesn't match the cited entries. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Gog the Mild Did you get to this? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I did, realised that I had completely missed referencing the final paragraph and then forgot to fix it. Apologies, and thanks for the reminder. Now appropriately cited and I am wondering what I was on when I supposedly did my pre-FAC check of the referencing. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Wagner 2006c, pp. 142–143. —also does not match the page range given in the source section for Wagner 2006c
 * Grr! Corrected. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

HF
Will take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 20:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "One of those imprisoned was the notoriously treacherous Charles of Navarre, one of the largest landholders in Normandy" - Is this Charles of Navarre the same Charles II of Navarre the English tried to cooperate with earlier?
 * Yes.


 * Which are the new alliances cemented by the chevauchée? Is it the Norman nobles who are mentioned to be turning to the English in the prelude material?
 * Rementioned in the first sentence of Aftermath. I have tweaked the language for clarity.


 * For the Curry ref, are both the (2002) and the (published 13 November 2002) needed?
 * Scratches head. It's the 2002 edition. Dunno where 2012 came from. Fixed. Thanks.


 * With Jaques, you provide both state and city, while with Madden, you only provide the state. For consistency's sake, would it be possibly to add the city in Minnesota for Madden?
 * Nope. The place of publication is not given.


 * Not seeing the start date explicitly referenced as 22 June in the body except for the indirect statement that the 22 days ended on July 13. Is it possible to work this exact start date into the body?
 * Done.

Good work, anticipate supporting on most criteria. Hog Farm Talk 14:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Supporting on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, source reliability and formatting, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments Dumelow
Looks good to me. I had a few minor comments from a quick read through - Dumelow (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "John attempted to strongly garrison his northern towns and fortifications against the expected descent by Edward III, at the same time assembling a field army; he was unable to, largely due to lack of money to recruit more men" The last part reads a bit strange to me, though I am not sure how to reword it. Potentially the reader may be confused as to whether John was unable to strengthen the garrisons or assemble the army or both
 * After checking the source I have expanded to "after allocating garrisons the French field army was unimpressive, largely due to lack of money."


 * "The English expedition to Normandy was intended to be carried out with the cooperation of the French magnate Charles II of Navarre" this is the first mention of Normandy, we've only previously stated that the English were planning offensives in "northern France and Gascony". Should this be "English expedition to northern France"?
 * Clumsy phrasing by me when I copy edited it down from something more understandable. Tweaked.


 * "Arras rebelled and killed loyalists". Reads a bit strange to me, perhaps "the inhabitants of Arras" or similar?
 * Tweaked.


 * "The French took control of most of Normandy and laid siege to those fortifications which refused to surrender.[36] Charles, as the Duke of Normandy, took charge of suppressing these holdouts.[37] He took personal command of the siege of Évreux, the capital of his holdings in Normandy as Count of Évreux." The reader could be confused here as to which Charles we were talking about (the dauphin or Navarre) as both were mentioned recently and we haven't mentioned the Duke of Normandy title before.
 * Clarified and introduced better.


 * "Houdetot also ordered assaults, which also failed" repetition of also, could perhaps be avoided.
 * This was deliberate, to emphasis that the same course of action was followed with similar (and by implication) unsurprising results. I could of course change it if you don't like it.


 * "Horses transported in the ships of the day needed several days rest to recover, otherwise they would break down" feels a bit out of place. Are we explaining that the English couldn't act immediately upon landing?  Might fit better elsewhere
 * I was explaining why a small number of men arrived in a large number of ships 17 days before the main force, as otherwise a reader might consider that a silly thing to do. So it seems appropriately located to me.


 * "When Lancaster marched east, John believed he was striking for Rouen, and moved his army there.[49] He took steps to block the fords across the Seine, in the belief Lancaster may have been heading for Calais." Might be better as "...he also took steps to block the fords..."
 * Done.


 * "The French army, which Rogers describes as "vastly superior ... in numbers", ", is this the same French army as was at Condé-sur-Iton? If so, we've already established it was "much stronger than the English force, with perhaps ten times the number of men"
 * All of the information on the size of the French army grouped at first mention.


 * "The three-week expedition had been very successful: The two besieged towns had been re-victualled" maybe "two of the besieged towns" or just "two besieged towns" as Tillières-sur-Avre was not resupplied
 * Good point. Changed.


 * Thanks, you have picked up a number of issues which I should have, and that is appreciated. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on prose. Changes/explanations are all good for me.  I think you're missing an "it" in "It was much stronger than the English force; Rogers describes as "vastly superior ... in numbers" with perhaps ten times the number of men"?  I think what threw me on the horse bit was that there was no previous mention that the ships were carrying horses, perhaps this could be stated? - Dumelow (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * "it" added; number of horses added in appropriate place. Thanks for both.
 * Thanks . Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Catlemur
I previously reviewed this article at GAN. My comments focus on prose and the parts of MoS I am familiar with.
 * "With French finances and morale at a low ebb after Crécy" - I think this falls under MOS:IDIOM.
 * Tweaked. ("With French finances and morale low after Crécy".)


 * Perhaps you could wikilink dauphin to Dauphin of France.
 * D'oh! Done.


 * "The Norman nobles who had not been arrested sent to Navarre for reinforcements, where Charles' younger brother Louis was administering the country." - I think this sentence warrants an extra comma after arrested.
 * Done, although in all seriousness that renders it unintelligible to my eye. That said, I am with Liz Truss on commas ;-) . I mean, try reading the sentence without the section which is between the commas.
 * I am usually of a different school of thought on commas than Gog, but do agree with them that adding the comma after arrested makes it more difficult to read. Hog Farm Talk 19:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

--Catlemur (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, this is good of you. Your comments so far addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on prose. All issues I raised have been addressed.--Catlemur (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators
, This one has three supports and image and source passes and has been running for nearly four weeks. I realise that it needs a look over by a non-MilHist editor, but meanwhile, could I have permission to nominate another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, should be okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Mind you I feel like making it conditional on the next one having "chevauchée " in the title as well -- never heard the term before this series of articles and now I really look forward to seeing (and saying) it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

 * Support. Seems to meet all the criteria, though I know little of this century. A few minor points.
 * "Following a series of disagreements between Philip VI of France (r. 1328–1350) and Edward III of England (r. 1327–1377), on 24 May 1337 Philip's Great Council in Paris agreed that the lands held by Edward III in France should be taken back into Philip's hands on the grounds that Edward III was in breach of his obligations as a vassal." I might consider moving the 1337 date to the start of the sentence, because to that point the reader has no idea what the timeframe is.
 * Good point. Done.
 * "Lancaster's small army was delayed for several days at Montebourg, setting off on 22 June[45] and arriving in Carentan, 25 miles (40 km) to the south, on the 23rd." I would suggest instead of the final clause, that "the next day" be placed after "arriving".
 * Done.
 * "in the belief Lancaster may have been heading for Calais" Calais is linked to the article on same, but there is a previous mention of Calais that is not linked to anything.
 * D'oh! Corrected.

--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Wehwalt, much appreciated. Your comments above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * "Norman-based French nobles". This should surely be Normandy-based?
 * It should, it should. Fixed.


 * "planned for the Duchy of Brittany under Lancaster to the Cotentin". Perhaps for clarity "to the Cotentin Peninsula in north-west Normandy".
 * Done.


 * "The truce did not stop ongoing naval clashes between the two countries, nor small-scale fighting in Gascony and the Duchy of Brittany, nor occasional fighting on a larger scale." I think that grammatically the second "nor" should be "and".
 * You may be correct and I will change it if you insist; but IMO that would make things trickier for a reader with 'and the Duchy of Brittany, and occasional fighting'.


 * "arrived in Bordeaux, the capital of English-held Gascony, on the 20th". Of what month?
 * Oops. How embarrassing. Thank you. Fixed. The month had been copy edited out and I read straight past that reference to it!


 * "Houdetot also ordered assaults, which also failed; so he drove mines towards its walls in an attempt to sap them. Philip of Navarre, the younger brother of Charles of Navarre, took command of his remaining adherents and withdrew to the northern Cotentin." I find this confusing. 1. What does "his" refer to? Did Philip take command of Houdetot's adherents or was he serving under Houdetot and deserted with his own troops? 2. You refer above to Charles's younger brother Louis, so Philip cannot be the younger brother. 3. Why remaining adherents? Had some deserted? 4. "also" is repeated.
 * Second sentence here changed to "Philip of Navarre, another younger brother of Charles of Navarre, took command those adherents of his brother who remained loyal and not besieged and withdrew to the northern Cotentin." which I think addresses all of you concerns. (And the first brother is now introduced as "where one of Charles' younger brothers, Louis, was administering the country."
 * I am still not clear about this paragraph. The first sentence is "The French took control of most of Normandy and laid siege to those fortifications which refused to surrender." Presumably at that stage the Norman nobles were rebelling but not yet allied with Edward, and the French took control of their lands apart from fortifications loyal to the rebels. It would be helpful to spell this out if correct. "Philip of Navarre, another younger brother of Charles of Navarre, took command those adherents of his brother who remained loyal and not besieged and withdrew to the northern Cotentin" It should be "command of those adherents". Presumably Pont-Audemer was a possession of Charles of Navarre and his men were besieged, but some defected to the French ("who remained loyal"). Again it would be helpful to spell these points out. Your account seems to me too abbreviated to be clear. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Dudley, I am struggling a little with this. The previous section ends "The Norman nobles who had not been arrested, sent to Navarre for reinforcements, where one of Charles' younger brothers, Louis, was administering the country. On receiving the news Louis began raising troops. The Norman nobles also turned to Edward for assistance." This to my eye covers your "Presumably at that stage the Norman nobles were rebelling but not yet allied with Edward, and the French took control of their lands apart from fortifications loyal to the rebels. It would be helpful to spell this out if correct." I may be being a bit slow, but barring saying the same thing immediately after having just said it I am not sure how I could be clearer. If you have a concrete suggestion, it would be gratefully received.
 * "of" added.
 * Pont-Audemer - good point. I have made this explicit.
 * "adherents" - sentence simplified. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Loooking at it again the only sentence I find unclear is "The French took control of most of Normandy and laid siege to those fortifications which refused to surrender." It is probably me being thick but you distinguish here between the French and the Normans, whereas above you imply that the Normans were French in such comments as "Much of the north of France was openly defying John". Perhaps "The king's supporters took control of most of Normandy and laid siege to those fortifications of the rebel nobles which refused to surrender." Dudley Miles (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Dudley, ah, I see. Well, I am not using "the north of France" as synonymous with Normandy; eg the sentence immediately after the one you quote from talks about a revolt in Arras. But I take your point. I have changed the sentence to "John's army took control of most of Normandy and laid siege to those rebel-held fortifications which refused to surrender." Does that work? And apologies for taking so long to get back to you on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "On 1 June an initial force of 140 men-at-arms, 200 archers and 1,400 horses left Southampton". You say below that all participants were mounted, so presumably they acquired more horses in Normandy?
 * "On 18 June 1356 Lancaster arrived and brought the strength up to 500 men-at-arms and 800 longbowmen". Ie a total of 1,300 men for the 1,400 horses. One assumes that other detachments already based in France, English and Navarrese, arrived on their own horses, but no source specifies this.


 * 30 em for the notes looks odd with only 4 notes. They would be easier to read if they were not in columns.
 * I very much disagree, but that may be my failing eyesight, so changed. Actually I find that really difficult to read, you sure about it?
 * I find it much easier to read without columns, but let's see what other editors think. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Another fine article. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Dudley, and thank you for reading through it and pointing out those flaws. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Dudley, just letting you know that I will be offline until Friday. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Z1720
Consider me a non-expert.
 * "But after relieving and re-victualling the besieged citadel". I've never heard the word "victualling"; it might be too technical. Perhaps "relieving and providing supplies"
 * You need to broaden your vocabulary. Changed to "resupplying".


 * "Two besieged fortifications had been re-victualled..." Does this sentence describe what happened during the 330 mi march? I was unclear by this.
 * Immediately before this, in the same sentence, it says "The three-week expedition had been very successful:". Is that insufficient linkage?


 * "should be taken back into Philip's hands on" -> "should be given back to Philip" to avoid MOS:IDIOM
 * That is not what happened. Changed to "should be taken into Philip's direct control".


 * "A treaty ending the war was negotiated at Guînes and signed on 6 April 1354." -> "The Treaty of Guînes was negociated to end the war and signed on 6 April 1354." to avoid an MOS:EASTEREGG and name the treaty in the text.
 * I prefer the existing text. There is no Easter egg: a reader clicks on "A treaty ending the war" and finds an article giving information on a treaty to end the war. It does not "require the reader to open [it] before understanding what's going on".


 * "The latest extension to the truce was due to expire on 24 June." Did it expire on 24 June? If so, maybe "The latest extension to the truce expired on 24 June and both sides were committed to full-scale war."
 * At that point in the chronology it was only due to expire. I prefer to retail an account in the order events occurred, rather than risk confusing a reader by jumping back and forth in time.


 * "John attempted to strongly garrison" Delete strongly, I doubt anyone wants to weakly garrison an area.
 * To the contrary, it was normal practice to weakly garrison fortifications most of the time. Pulling most of their (potential) garrisons out was the normal way to raise a field army. Strongly garrisoning all fortifications would have required having most of the nation in arms most of the time.


 * "the modern historian Clifford Rogers concluded" He should be wikilinked here, instead of in the next section.
 * Oops. Thank you. Done.


 * "The Norman nobles who had not been arrested, sent to Navarre for reinforcements," Should there be a comma after nobles?
 * No.


 * "which also failed; so he drove" the semi-colon should be a comma, or delete so.
 * Commaised.


 * "Horses transported in the ships of the day needed several days rest to recover, otherwise they would break down." Is break down the right term to use here? I've never thought of horses as breaking down, as they are not machines. Maybe "several days rest to recover, otherwise they would be ineffective" or something similar?
 * Break down is the correct term, but you are right that it is technical. I have explained more fully.


 * "and Évreux; but by the time he landed" either replace the semi-colon with a comma or delete but
 * "but" deleted.


 * "On the 7th Lancaster rested his men and horses,[56][57] but they did so arrayed in battle order outside Verneuil in case of a French attack.[57]" I don't think I've heard of "arrayed" before. Perhaps, "On the 7th Lancaster rested his men and horses,[56][57] arranged in a battle formation outside Verneuil in case of a French attack.[57]"
 * You should read more widely, "battle array" gets 270,000 hits on Google. Changed to "they did so in battle order".


 * "the French arrayed themselves for battle" same as above, maybe "arranged themselves for battle"?
 * Changed to prepared.


 * "The, by now, Anglo-Navarrese force" This is a bit awkward, maybe "The newly-merged Anglo-Navarrese force" or "The newly-formed Anglo-Navarrese force"
 * Simplified to "The force returned to Montebourg"

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Z1720. My responses to your comments are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

More comments:
 * The caption for John II's image in "Return" is centered. Any reason for this? The formatting looks weird on my computer because the caption is on two lines.
 * I always centre all captions in all articles I do significant work on. I find left justified cations difficult to read, especially when the last line has a single word. I also feel that centred captions look neater and more professional (criterion 1a). Centring does not change the number of lanes a caption runs over - try it and see.
 * Can I upload a screenshot of the article on Flickr, and post the Flickr link below to show you the formatting I see on my computer? Z1720 (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Gog and I have exchanged emails, and have resolved this concern. Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Why is the ISBN of Kenneth Fowler's source not given? It's available in the archive.org link.
 * I have the hard copy which only gives the SBN. I was reluctant to include a retroactively designated identifier which was not on the title page of the volume I was holding. I could do so, or I could use the SBN?
 * I would not add the SBN, because that is a different number from ISBN, so it wouldn't make sense for one source to have an SBN while the others don't. Does an ISBN apply retroactively? I do not know enough about this to determine what to do, maybe Gog can ping an editor you think would know the answer to this? Z1720 (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , there is nothing wrong with using a retroactively applied ISBN. I have done it several times myself. So I am probably being irrational in being reluctant to do so just because there is an SBN on the title page. I have replaced the OCLC with the ISBN. Which turns out to be the SBN with 978-0- in front. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * In terms of my vocabulary: I'm not well read in military history topics and I prefer reading about other topics such as Canada, political history, alternative religious movements and stage dance. While many Wikipedia readers are military buffs, others are high school students or passerbys whose vocabulary in military topics is not as strong. All I can do as a non-expert is point out when things don't make sense to me; it's up to the nominator to consider my suggestions. I won't oppose unless I feel something is very technical, but I have to be honest when I don't understand something.
 * Of course, understood. All Wikipedia articles are meant to be broadly comprehensible and reviews by non-specialists are hence especially valued, for much the reasons you outline. The FAC coordinators will not promote a milhist article which has not been reviewed by a non-aficionado and it is especially pleasing to me that this nomination has attracted so many such reviews.

That's my second set of comments. Z1720 (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good points. All addressed, in one case with a query for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My concerns have been addressed. Support. Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)