Talk:Battle of Crécy/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 14:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- No DABs, external links OK
- Images properly licensed.
- between a French army commanded by King Philip VI and an English army led by King Edward III Perhaps "between armies led by King Philp VI of France and King Edward III of England? Gets rid of multiple "army", but it's just a suggestion.
- Ho hum. I can see that getting rid of the duplication would be good. But I am not so sure that your alternative and any others I can think of aren't worse. A minor point - I prefer it as it is, but if you are keen on your option I will change it.
- No, it was just a suggestion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ho hum. I can see that getting rid of the duplication would be good. But I am not so sure that your alternative and any others I can think of aren't worse. A minor point - I prefer it as it is, but if you are keen on your option I will change it.
- I think that the Background and Prelude sections need to heavily trimmed and condensed with the detail starting after crossing the Seine.
- Trimmed down. I wouldn't like to cut it a lot more; see what you think.
- The Prelude section is fine, but the Background needs more work. Most of the references to the Gascon campaign should be summarized and condensed; all that a reader really needs to know in the context of this battle is that there was another theater of operations further south that significantly diverted French attention, IMO. That info was important for the chevauchée article because it explained why the French did some of the things that they did, but now that we're focused on the immediate background for the battle, it's far less important.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: Hmm. Obviously I agree re the principle, but feel that you may be pushing it a bit far in this case. Any hoo, some more cut out. Also a number of additional references as I prepare for FAC . Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think that you've gone far enough as there's a lot of excess detail on the Gascon campaign, but we can see what other reviewers think as you work your way up to FAC. I fixed a couple of typos for you, see if I did the right thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: Both good. Thank you. Both caused by me doing edits on a phone which won’t do preview. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think that you've gone far enough as there's a lot of excess detail on the Gascon campaign, but we can see what other reviewers think as you work your way up to FAC. I fixed a couple of typos for you, see if I did the right thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: Hmm. Obviously I agree re the principle, but feel that you may be pushing it a bit far in this case. Any hoo, some more cut out. Also a number of additional references as I prepare for FAC . Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- The Prelude section is fine, but the Background needs more work. Most of the references to the Gascon campaign should be summarized and condensed; all that a reader really needs to know in the context of this battle is that there was another theater of operations further south that significantly diverted French attention, IMO. That info was important for the chevauchée article because it explained why the French did some of the things that they did, but now that we're focused on the immediate background for the battle, it's far less important.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Trimmed down. I wouldn't like to cut it a lot more; see what you think.
- 12 miles (19 km) march turn this into the adjectival for with |adj=on in the template.
- Seven decisive battles of the Middle Ages in the main body. title case please
- Grimace * Done.
- Wouldn't it be nice if we actually remembered to do all these niggles before we nominate these articles?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I have a checklist. This is on it. D’oh!
- Also with the titles of a couple of your sources.
- Done.
- Rogers, Clifford J. (2007). Soldiers Lives through History: The Middle Ages. Westport: Greenwood. ISBN 978-0313333507. Indent like the others. And isn't it missing an apostrophe in Soldiers?
- It is. Inserted
- Very nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: Apologies. I have only just picked this up. My internet is down and so I am having a lot of problems. Could you give me a few more days to come back to you? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: And done. (Hopefully.) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- So much for the couple of days!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- My internet came up for literally 90 seconds and I was able to hurriedly upload.
- So much for the couple of days!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: And done. (Hopefully.) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- No rush.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: Apologies. I have only just picked this up. My internet is down and so I am having a lot of problems. Could you give me a few more days to come back to you? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)