Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Breteuil

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Siege of Breteuil
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

In which the French besiege a French fortification, it is daringly relieved and resupplied by the English, then re-sieged by the French king. This becomes a fair and an affair of honour, so when the heir to the English throne went on campaign the French refused to move. (Eventually they do and it ends with a crushing French defeat and the capture of their king. But that's another article.) See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Image licensing looks good (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
Alright, time to review!
 * Some notes can be transferred to the prose directly.
 * "The citadel, known as the Grey Tower (Tour Grise), had been constructed by the English king Henry I (r. 1100–1135)" can be moved directly to the article
 * I would prefer reference to events which took place more than two years before those relating to the topic in a footnote. If pressed I would consider it more appropriate to delete them than to move them to the main article.


 * Lede can be shorter by removing details:
 * "However, it made little progress as the town was well garrisoned and had been left by Lancaster with food for a year."
 * "Taking Breteuil became a matter of prestige for John and he refused to take the army south to face the Black Prince."
 * ... which lead to the next point: passive voice. Passive voice is perfectly fine, but misuse can make reading the article difficult. → Misuse of passive voice makes the article difficult to read.
 * "after allocating garrisons the French field army was unimpressive, largely due to lack of money to recruit more men" → "due to lack of money to recruit more men, the French field army was (editorial?)"
 * To my eye/ear your suggested change makes the article more difficult/complex/stilted to read.
 * Changed to "inadequate" to more precisely match the source.


 * "Meanwhile, the Black Prince, the son and heir of the English King, had assembled an Anglo-Gascon army at Bergerac and marched into French-held territory, devastating the countryside as he went." → "Meanwhile, the Black Prince, the son and heir of the English King, had assembled an Anglo-Gascon army at Bergerac, marching into French-held territory and devastated the countryside as he went."
 * Any lead can be shortened. This one does not seem excessively long at 16% the size of the main article.


 * Editorial can also be seen in the article:
 * "One of those imprisoned was the notoriously treacherous ..."
 * Changed to "inveterately".


 * "in addition John probably wished for all of his stragglers and detachments to join his army before offering battle."
 * I am missing what your point is. This is what the sources say. I assume because they do not claim to know what was happening inside John's head. He paused - relayed as a fact by the sources; possibly to gather his full force - relayed by the sources as a likely, but not certain reason.


 * Some sentences can be shortened for brevity:
 * "John took personal charge of this second siege, which commenced on 12 July." → "John took personal charge of this second siege commenced on 12 July."
 * That would not be grammatical.


 * "Évreux was the capital of Navarre's holdings in Normandy as Count of Évreux and Charles took personal command of its siege, ordering several assaults, which were unsuccessful." → "At the time, Évreux was the capital of Navarre's holdings in Normandy. The Count of Évreux and Charles took personal command of its siege and ordered several assaults, which were unsuccessful."
 * ? Charles and the Count of Évreux were on opposing sides.


 * Sourcing: Not sure about their content, but seems good and relevant.
 * Accessibility: Remove center alignment in images,
 * Why?


 * looking at alt-text Looks good!
 * Hi User:CactiStaccingCrane and thanks for the review. All of you points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks! About accessibility, I don't think centering it is a good idea because this can confuse a ton of screenreaders. I think I need to thank you more for that matter - you spotted a ton of my reviewing mistakes :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Gog the Mild, I think I would support this nomination. I am away from English Wikipedia quite a bit as I get cranky and burn-out, so thanks for pinging me. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by CPA
Drive-by
 * Could see this "pp. 79ff" in ref 18. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, is that intended to be an actionable comment? If it is, could you elaborate. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops, thought I was clearer here. There's an odd double "pp" while this is only one page here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah. I am referring to more than one page. "Wikt:ff" means 'and the pages following'. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments
 * It lasted from April to about 20 August 1356 We don't know when this started right?
 * We don't know exactly, just that it was some time in April. Which I don't seem to have included in the main article. Fixed.


 * It was interrupted on 5 July when a small English army Was this briefly interrupted?
 * I don't understand the query. As the main article elaborates, the siege was lifted on 5 July and re-imposed on the 9th or a day or two later.


 * Eventually, some time around 20 August Infobox says something different?
 * Good spot. c. added to the infobox.


 * So just a question but when do you use the name of the monarch like "Edward" and when do you say with an ordinal like "Edward III"? It just because I see the article uses "Philip's Great Council in Paris" and "be taken into Philip's direct control" while Edward get his ordinal "on the grounds that Edward III was in breach".
 * Yep. I have consistently used Edward's ordinal and consistently not used John's after first mention.


 * nor small-scale fighting in Gascony and the Duchy of Brittany, nor occasional fighting on a larger scale --> "nor both large and small-scale fightings in Gascony and the Duchy of Brittany"?
 * Erm, that's not grammatical, and you have added large-scale fighting which my tries to make clear didn't take place.


 * In Navarre one of Charles' younger brothers --> "In Navarre one of Charles's younger brothers"
 * Already removed.


 * Louis, was administering the country; on receiving the news he began raising troops MOS:EGG here. If a physical copy of this article were printed then this information would've been lost.
 * Already removed.


 * Philip of Navarre, another younger brother of Charles of Navarre Same as above.
 * dining at the table of Charles, John's eldest son, the dauphin Same as above.
 * Sorry, but I really cannot see what change you are proposing here. Nor what, if anything, you dislike about the current version. Could you unpack your issue a little? Thanks.


 * appealed to the English king for military assistance Upper case for the word king here.
 * Done.


 * and camped for the night.[note 4][53][54] vs "largest landholders in Normandy.[27][note 1]" Standerdise the notes maybe?
 * Done.


 * I see three howevers for a short article like this; maybe cut one out?
 * A "however" every 800+ words seems modest to me. But two edited out.


 * The historian Kenneth Fowler describes the siege as "magnificent but archaic" Modern historian?
 * I am unsure that their is any other sort. But added for the avoidence of doubt.


 * acknowledged Edward III as king of France and did homage Upper case of King of France because it's title?
 * I see where you're coming from, but I think not in this case.


 * Is it possible to maximise the rows from eight to three maximum in the citations and Sources from five to three maximum? It looks a little bit chaotic.
 * Do I understand that you would like the rows decreasing? Which would result in a large number of very thin columns. Which would be illegible. Are you aware that the number of columns for both citations and sources will vary from device to device? It is not something I can set the number of.

That's my review kind of happy to back haha happy late Chrismas and New Year I guess. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . It is great to have you back. And apologies for overlooking this and taking more than two weeks to respond. I have addressed all of your comments, a couple with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * did you miss this? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I did, thanks for flagging it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, as this turned into rather more than a drive by I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose the nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Support Comments from FredModulars
Looks like a good article.
 * Infobox says "April – 20 August 1356". In the lead, it's 1346. Which is it?
 * Gah! 1356. I also have a FAC running on Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347 and I keep confusing the two. Thanks for picking it up.


 * Either a comma after John II in the lead or no comma before or after.
 * Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * ", intended to bring a temporary halt to the fighting" I know British English has some comma rules which contrast with American English, but shouldn't there should be a comma after fighting?
 * Not IMO, but I see where you are coming from, so added anyway.


 * "While French attention was focused on the north" comma after north since it's a dependent clause unless, again, there are different rules.
 * Really? Americans are strange. Added.


 * Shouldn't Edward of Woodstock be mentioned in the lead? For instance, "Meanwhile, Edward of Woodstock, commonly known as the Black Prince, the son and heir of the English King"
 * He is mentioned, "by the Black Prince's smaller force". As he gets a minor walk on part I see no need to rehearse his background in the lead. I don't do so for more central figures.


 * Why do some figures (e.g., Phillip VI and Edward III) have their birth/death years and others don't?
 * It is normal to include the reigns (hover your mouse over the "r.") of monarchs who were alive during the period they are mentioned at first mention in the main article. (Or sometimes all of them.) There is even a template just for this. And, oops, I forgot John; now added.
 * Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. Not sure if it's the browser (I use Safari), but the "r." and "c." just become question marks when I hover over them.
 * No worries. I always think that reviewers should feel free to poke at everything. Either there is an easy answer or not. Either way, no problem.
 * On several devices I get a question mark with a little box next to it containing "Reigned".
 * That's great. Thanks, your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * First comment about 1346 in the lead hasn't been changed yet.
 * That is strange. Definitely fixed now!


 * "Charles, who was also the duke of Normandy," capitalize duke.
 * My reading of MOS:JOBTITLES is that it shouldn't be capitalised in this case.


 * "was announced by the French on 14 May." Since we haven't said that it's 1356 since the last section and it's not mentioned again for two paragraphs, it might as well be added it here.
 * Fair enough, I am probably too close to it. Added.


 * Cotentin and looting are double linked.
 * Cotentin - fixed. Looting - one is to explain "looting" and the other (via a redirect) "sacked". The MoS does not forbid double linking, but says "as a rule of thumb, only link the first occurrence of a term in the text of the article", and this seems a case where it would be helpful to a reader.
 * Alright.


 * There's no period at the end of Note 2.
 * Well spotted. Added.


 * Again optional, but it feels strange for the lead and the text to say the same exact thing. ("The French army was heavily defeated by the Black Prince's smaller force and John was captured, along with most of his court and much of the nobility of France.") Perhaps reword this sentence in either the lead or the body.
 * Shortened in the lead.

That should be it from me. FredModulars (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again FredModulars, all good stuff. Keep it coming. Your comments to date addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a good article. Great job. I support this A-class nomination now that these minor issues have been dealt with. FredModulars (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Johannes Schade
I have the vantage point of somebody who is not an expert in the matter. The siege of Breteuil is difficult to introduce to the general reader because of the complexity of its context. Breteuil was defended by the Navarrese and besieged by the French, but the siege must also be seen in the wider context of the Hundred Years' War as the Navarrese were at that moment allied with the English against the French (if I understand it right). The article's Lead, Background, and Prelude sections introduce the Hundred Years' war well and sometimes, I think, with more than sufficient detail, but these sections do not explain well enough (IMHO) the conflict and rivalry between John II of France and Charles II of Navarre.

General remark: the article sometimes capitalises template names with a leading uppercase and sometimes as all-lowercase. I would recommend to always start template names with an uppercase letter as some of them are awkward to use in all-lowercase, e.g. CSS image crop (and other templates starting with CSS) and TOC limit. Just for the benefit of a more consistent look of the code.

Another general remark: do you not believe that it is good to prevent line breaks between day and month, e.g. 15&nbsp&semi;January? The regretted User:Twofingered Typist from the Guild of Copy Editors always insisted on that.


 * thank you for the support. I have not yet read your comments below, but would like to apologise for having not addressed your general points above. I didn't respond in order and didn't scroll up past "Lead" when checking. In particular, your desire to have more information on Navarre, the person, and the Navarrese context. Actually this really means how Navarre fitted into French politics, but still it does seem light. This is probably because none of the sources (surprisingly) deal with this. They universally approach and analyse the siege as part of the Anglo-French war. So I feel a little constrained that I may stray into OR. Nevertheless, now that you have mentioned it it seems clear that some more could usefully be added and I shall see what I can come up with. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead

 * Investment. This military term "investment" is introduced in the lead sentence as a synonym of siege, seemingly just to avoid duplication. It is not used anywhere else in the text. See WP:REDUNDANCY. There should be a better way. More to follow, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks Johannes Schade. I look forward to your further comments and shall probably wait until you have completed your first pass before responding. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Gog (if I may call you so), I am glad you accept criticism so graciously. I will go on with it as you prompted me to do. With thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. Somewhetre before this sentence the text should explain that the Navarrese were allied with the English. The sentence ("It was interrupted on 5 July when a small English army commanded by Henry, Earl of Lancaster relieved and resupplied it") would be better in active voice: Lancaster did all these thinks and should be the subject of the sentence. As the sentence stands now, the pronoun "it" is used to refer first to the siege and then to the town. Lancaster (i.e. Henry of Grosmont) had been created duke in 1351 and should therefore be called "duke" rather than "earl". Perhaps Lancaster should also be called "the King's lieutenant" (as in the title of the book) to introduced him to the reader. The article Lancaster's Normandy chevauchée of 1356 should probably be linked.


 * 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. Bergerac is quite certainly unwanted detail at the lead level (and probably even later in the body). It is likely that most readers will not know where Bergerac is (I still don't). Propose "had assembled an army in Gascony".


 * 3rd paragraph. "At some point in August": too sudden jump from the Black Prince's campaign to the siege of Breteuil.

Background
Much detail, concerning the Hundred Years' War could be dropped from this section and formulations could be straightened and shortened. About all we need to know is that the English King and some of his nobles were vassals of the French King for properties held in Normandy and Gascony, that Edward III claimed the French crown and started the war in 1337.
 * That is factually incorrect. Twice actually. Which suggests to me that a fuller explanation is both needed and may be helpful.

Perhaps it should be mentioned that Edward spent the year 1356 in England and was therefore absent. We need more background on Navarre. The Battle of Crécy (1346), the capture of Calais (1347), the truce of Calais (1347), the treaty of Guînes (1354) are not essential to explain the siege of Breteuil.
 * I honestly fail to see how Edward's location is relevant.
 * As the French king was present, I wondered where the English one was.
 * "We need more background on Navarre." The person or the country?
 * Sorry, I should have been more precise, I meant the person.
 * Again I disagree re how much background is helpful. I have read trough and trimmed a little in the light of your comments.
 * Thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Prelude
This section could probly be much shortened and integrated into the Background section above.
 * I am sure that it could. I am less sure how that would benefit a reader.
 * You are right, my formulation is bad, but I am sure you guessed what i meant. Apologies, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1st paragraph. Most of the 1st paragraph treats events that happened in 1355 in far-away Gascony and concerns the Black Prince. I find that these events are not relevant enough to be included here. This is quite obviously the case of the famous Black Prince's chévauchée of 1355 (to Narbonne).
 * The only reason Breteuil is notable, compared with the siege of hundreds of other fortifications during the war, is because it delayed John's response to the Black Princes 1356 campaign. Which in turn led to the most important battle of hte war. I consider the Black Prince's activities to be vital context for a reader to understand this.
 * 2nd paragraph, "#tag". I feel that opening an explanatory footnote with "{{#tag:ref|" looks archaic. Would you not agree that using {{Tl|Efn}} makes for a much more user-friendly code?
 * No.
 * Dear Gog the Mild, please, just for me to learn: when should "{{#tag:ref|" be used rather than {{Tl|Efn}}? With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. I have no interest in producing tidy code and, thankfully, Wikipedia doesn't require me to. Just to produce "tidy" text. I shall play around the next time I use footnotes and see if I can produce a similar effect with efn to #tag. If it works as readily I may swap, either is merely a means to an end.
 * 2nd Paragraph, Quotation. If the quote "the King of France was severely hated in his own realm" is really needed, it must have a citation (probably Froissart?).
 * ? It is. Cite 27.
 * 2nd paragraph: Charles. Talking about "Charles" (unqualified) can be confusing because the Dauphin and Navarre were both called Charles. With regard to Charles, the futur Charles V it is probably best introduced as "Charles, the Dauphin", and called him "the dauphin" afterwards. Could King Charles II of Navarre be called just "Navarre"?
 * I was trying to avoid usages such as 'Navarre one of Navarre's'. And phrases such as "sent to Navarre for reinforcements" becoming ambiguous. But you are right and I have come up with a work around. However, with "Philip of Navarre, another younger brother of Charles of Navarre" I really don't like 'Philip of Navarre, another younger brother of Navarre' and so propose leaving it as is as the least bad option unless you have a better idea - which would be welcome. I have left the Dauphin as "Charles".
 * 2nd paragraph: On 5 April 1356"...". The events of this day are relevant and many of the protagonists that are important for the siege are involved. It should perhaps be made clear that Navarre was detained until 5 April 1356 and was therefore absent from Lancaster's chevauchée and the siege og Breteuil.
 * Good point. Done.
 * 2nd paragraph, last sentence: The statement about Louis raising troups in spring 1356 stands in isolation. I would say it is irrelevant unless it can be linked up with Lancaster's chevauchée or the siege. This is the only mention of Louis. Is it useful to introduce him?
 * I am missing your point I think. But it is not a sentence I feel strongly about, and so deleted.

First Siege

 * 1st paragraph., 2nd sentence: "The Cotentin area in the north-west was pro-Navarrese ...". This is a bit of an understatement, the Cotentin and a band of land along the west coast of Normandy belonged to Navarre. See the map in the article "Guerre de Cent Ans en Normandie" of the French Wikipedia.
 * Is this intended to be actionable?
 * Sorry, I should have been clearer: I thought you should have said "belonged to Navarre" instead of "was pro-Navarrese", but I see now that a somewhat naïve reader could interpet this as meaning that Cotentin was part of the country called Navarre. I had not really thought of that and always used Navarre for the person. With thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 1st paragraph: "Chartes concentrating an army" -> "Chartes assembling an army".
 * Done.

Was the arrière-ban called to assemble at Chartres? The text does not seem clear on this.
 * Indeed. Which is why the article isn't either.


 * Cliff Rogers does not seem to be notable (Wikipedia has no article on him). I feel it would be better not to mention him in the article's main text and not to use a direct quote from him. This is clutter to the general reader. His name will of course appear in the references. That is where he belongs.
 * Professor Rogers is one of the pre-eminent experts on the period. Wikipedia is, notoriously, not a reliable source. Rogers was Professor of History at West Point, editor of The Journal of Medieval Military History, a contributor to The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology, he was a Fulbright fellow at the Institute of Historial Research in London, an Olin Fellow at Yale, and a Leverhulme Visiting Professor at the University of Wales, Swansea. He was a recipient of the Bachrach medal from De Re Militarietc. Etc.
 * Sorry, again my ignorance, apologies, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * According to Maurice Druon's Les Rois maudits, the French had taken the town and the castle at the end of the first siege and Lancaster took it back and installed a Navarrese garrison commanded by a man he calls "Sanche Lopez" (https://archive.org/details/lesroismauditsro0000druo/page/1504/).
 * Er. You are aware that that is a work of fiction?
 * I think I habe indeed gone terribly wrong here and beg your forgiveness. However, it is a fact that the Rois maudits is widely read. You have read it and so has BUIDHE, seems it, and finally even I have read it. Many of your readers see this part of French history through the eyes of Druon. The fiction parts are few and usually quite easy to separate. Druon seems to be never wrong on historical facts. He also has the advantage that it is easy to read. Froissart is his main source but much more demanding. I would think that about everything we know about the Siege of Breteuil comes from Froissart, but you seem to reject Froissart as well, perhaps because of WP:NONENG. My apologies for having exasperated you, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually not only have I never read it, I have never heard of either the book or the author.
 * It is considered a classic in France and everybody knows it. You may have seen the article about it: The Accursed kings. I am sure that you, with your detailed knowledge of the times, would immensely enjoy reading this book. It is a well told, easy and very enjoyable read. Druon starts it with the motto "L'histoire est un roman qui a été". Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Lopez is also found in a slightly different form in Froissart.147 "à Breteuil messire Sanse Lopin". According to Jonathan Sumption, the castle had not yet fallen and Lancaster chased the besiegers away. There is a bit of a contradiction.
 * Well, yes it is. But I prefer to go for the account by the history academic rather than the historical novel which is supposed to make things up. (I find having to justify not sourcing to fiction exasperating.)
 * You have a weighty argument against Druon and me, but what about Froissart? Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh pur-leeze! Froissart was a paid propagandist for the wife of the English King. He wasn't even consistent himself. As I wrote in another article "Froissart's third version of his Chronicles more than doubles his estimate in the first." (Of the English strength at Crecy.) Or as Kelly DeVries says in the wonderfully named "God, Leadership, Flemings and Archery: Contemporary Perspectives of Victory and Defeat at the Battle of Sluys, 1340" "each of the three redactions of his work come to different conclusions." (Regarding the Battle of Sluys.) I could go on. I let professional historians who sup with very long spoons sieve his words, then weigh their words.
 * Wise words, best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Say that Montebourg is in Cotentin.
 * Why?
 * Sorry, my ignorance. I did not know where it was, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Relief

 * Looting, "On 24 June the English set out from Montebourg, burning and looting their way through western Normandy." Cotentin was friendly territory belongig to Navarre. Would they really have looted western Normandy?
 * Rogers describes Lancaster in Carentan as "ready to set forth into enemy territory". Burne states that St Lo was occupied by the French.

Is this in [35][45][46]? It does not seem to be in Fowler [45] which is accessible, nor in the accessible part of Rogers. Would it have been possible to place the three citation marks so that one could have better WP:INTEGRITY?
 * It would, and I often do, but I would then get reviewers forcefully requesting me to group cites at the ends of sentences for reader friendliness. Eg "Several intrusive reference placements, never been a massive fan of mid-sentence refs when I firmly believe that readers can wait until the end of a clause before getting linked up to the info they might need."
 * I see. You are surely right.Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Citation 44, "Rogers 2014, p. 341, 341, n.70". I suppose "n70" means "note 70"? I do not think it is necessary to abbreviate. Why not "note 70" (or should it be "Note 70?"). I cannot know what is in the source because the PDF given for Rogers stops a page 272, and page 341 is therefore not accessible.
 * Sorry, my ignorance again. Apologies, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I found that User:Buidhe used "fn." for footnote in her FA Genocide denial, "Armenian genocide" section, 3rd paragraph, end-of-paragraph citation: . Does that create a precedent to follow? With thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think any of these options is ok, as long as its consistent. I've seen n., fn., and written out, or just giving the page number the note is on. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Second Siege

 * I feel that it is seldom helpful to mention the names of historians in the main text of Wikipedia history articles.
 * I am inclined to disagree. (Obviously, otherwise I wouln't have done it. Could you point me to specific examples where you feel it inappropriate?

Exceptions are probably disputes between notable historians, especially when the opinions of these historians are quoted in the main text. Jonathan Sumption is notable (article), but Fowler has no article.
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Sumption probably has an article because he later became a supreme court judge. Wikipedia notability has little to do with whether they constitute a reliable source - see WP:RS.


 * Artillery? The Wikipedia article Artillery maintains that the defenders used a cannon during the Siege of Breteuil: "Cannons were only useful for the defense of a castle, as demonstrated at Breteuil in 1356, when the besieged English used a cannon to destroy an attacking French assault tower.[13]". It provides a citation Lee (2008). The text is a bit wrong as the Navarrese, not the English defended the castle. Druon also mentions the use of artillery: "Messire de Lancastre avait laissé des bouches de canon à Sanche Lopez ..." (https://archive.org/details/lesroismauditsro0000druo/page/1515/). He seems to take this from Froissart who writes "Si s'étoient pourvus selon ce de canons, jetant feu et grands gros carreaux pour tout dérompre." (https://archive.org/details/chroniquesdefro17froigoog/page/n161/ p. 153). It seems therefore quite sure that the siege is an example of early use of artillery, which I think is worthwhile mentioning.
 * Artillery was fairly common at the time. In my FA on the Siege of Berwick (1333) I note it as the "the first town in the British Isles to be bombarded by cannon". By 1356 they were too commonly used to be classed as unusual. Plus, a source I consider much more authoritative states that the tower was destroyed by flaming arrows.
 * Do you think that source has proven Froissart wrong? I wondered whether perhaps bothg versions should be presented. But please accept my apologies for having maintained it was unusual. You have demonstrated my ignorance and proven me wrong. But why is the Siege of Breteuil then mentioned in the article Artillery?Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the source for that claim, which is Military Technologies of the World. A very broad brush work. See the contents page here. You can see, I think, why I prefer the opinion of a specialist in the period. Perhaps the author of MTotW was a fan of Froissart and mistook him for a reliable source; who knows?

Aftermath

 * Should not the date of the Battle of Poitiers be given? This was the 19 September 1356, only a month after the fall of Breteuil.
 * Added.

Source review - pass
Will take this one on. Hog Farm Talk 14:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The sources are all reliable for what they are citing, and a reasonable breadth of the academic views on the subject seems to be reflected. The sources appear to be formatted correctly, although Michael Prestwich can be linked since you're linking authors. Everything that I would expect to be sourced is sourced. Hog Farm Talk 17:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)