Talk:Lancaster's Normandy chevauchée of 1356

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Lancaster's Normandy chevauchée of 1356/GA1

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

Reviewer: Catlemur (talk · contribs) 16:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will start the review shortly.--Catlemur (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "John's eldest son (the dauphin), Charles," - Charles' article is linked twice in this passage.

Stupid of me. Fixed.

• "The Norman nobles who had not been arrested sent to Navarre for reinforcements." - How did the nobles travel to the other side of France for reinforcements? Was it because of Charles II of Navarre?

They didn't, they "sent" for the reinforcements. I assume that their messangers travelled by sea, but I can't find a source to confirm that.

Yes, should I explain that?

Please do.--Catlemur (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

• The article refers to the king of Navarre as Charles II of Navarre in the lede and Charles of Navarre in the rest of the article.

It is usual to introduce a person fully at first mention and more briefly thereafter. He would be "Charles", but he needs a disambiguator from the dauphin, also Charles. And it is how he is usually referred to in RSs. (I assume for much the same reason.)

• "was moving south from Pont-Audemer John followed" → "was moving south from Pont-Audemer, John followed"

Done.

• Move the Rouen wikilink to the Outward section from Return.

Done.

• "Some French cavalry were trailing Lancaster and he may have believed they were the van of John's entire army[65] as on the 10th"→"Some French cavalry were trailing Lancaster and he may have believed they were the van of John's entire army,[65] as on the 10th"

Done.

• "English had travelled 330 miles"→ Convert miles to km.

Done.

• Is Godfrey d'Harcourt the same person as
  Geoffroy de Harcourt
  ?

He is. Thank you. Linked.

• "acknowledged Edward III as king of France"→"acknowledged Edward III as King of France"

Done.

• Note 3 - Remove ironically.

Done.

• Refs 43 and 51 use p. for multiple non continuous pages cited, while ref 11, 24, 25 etc use pp.

Refs 43 and 51 are not to "multiple non continuous pages cited". They are to text in the body of a page and to a footnote on the same page. Hence "p.".

• Some sources use the city + province of publication, while others only refer to city. This needs to uniform.

No it doesn't. It is usual to add sufficient additional detail to the more obscure locations where the place referred to is not obvious. So neither New York nor Minnesota are likely to confuse a reader, while Woodbridge could be any of these.

--Catlemur (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Catlemur, I appreciate that. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Catlemur: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you ad a source to the Commons page for Carte Normandie Historique.png to support its accuracy?--Catlemur (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Catlemur, I can. Good spot. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (

   lists

   ):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (

   reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism

   ):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: --Catlemur (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing something very obvious, but it seems to me that this page is incorrect in referring to Henry as Earl of Lancaster. According to his article, he was raised to be Duke of Lancaster in 1351, so in the context of the events covered here, he should surely be called Duke rather than Earl. MW691 (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, he should. I am not sure how I missed that. Thank you. Page amended. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, glad to have been of help! MW691 (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]