Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edward III's Breton campaign/archive1

Edward III's Breton campaign

Featured article candidates/Edward III's Breton campaign/archive1

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Hundred Years' War is less than four years old and the English king, Edward III, seizes an opportunity to intervene in French internal affairs. There are difficulties assembling shipping and English forces dribble into Brittainy. Amazingly all goes passably well until it doesn't. At which point Edward manages, somehow, to negotiate a favourable truce and leave French territory after less than four months. I recently created this to fill a gap in the first phase of the Breton Civil War. It is fresh from GAN and I now offer it up at FAC in the hope that you will consider it worthy. As ever, all constructive comments are welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed this at GAN with FAC in mind, and I think this meets the criteria. Hog Farm _Talk 01:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remsense

Reserving my spot. Remsense ‥ 论 08:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

"Brittainy" should be "Brittany".

Oops. Fixed.

Can coup de main and siege engine be linked?

Sure, done.

"Charles'". Not sure why there's an apostrophe there.

Removed.

More comments to come. Steelkamp (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting those Steelkamp, Appreciated. Now fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

Lead

"coup de main" – link or explanation, please

Now linked. Is that sufficient do you think?

Background

"mostly preferred Charles' [claim]" – unless you are giving Charles a French pronunciation à la de Gaulle, Baudelaire et al, ess-apostrophe-ess is wanted here (Fowler: Names ending in -s: Use 's for the possessive case in names and surnames whenever possible; in other words, whenever you would tend to pronounce the possessive form of the name with an extra iz sound, e.g. Charles's brother, St James's Square, Thomas's niece, Zacharias's car.

While not wishing to upset the Fowlers, and while agreeing on the pronunciation of the possessive of James etc I have never heard anyone say Charleses. Frankly it looks and sounds as semi-literate as, say, the Princess of Waleses husband". (If Fowler differs from me on this please don't share - I would like to keep my belief unshattered.) In support can I offer this and this? Or this, demonstrating a minority but substantial use. I am aware that you have your teeth into this one and I will, of course, give way if you insist, but I wanted to communicate that this usage is not just a personal peccadillo.

English intervention

"Admiral of the North Robert Morley" – false title. Try the New York Times "good morning" test: "Good morning, Admiral of the North Morley" – it doesn't work.

Yes, I am fond of quoting that myself. Oh dear. Amended. (But I have to say that it reads a little oddly now: The Admiral of the North Robert Morley applied draconian measures ... For information, would one say "The General Robert Morley ..." or "General Robert Morley ..."?)

"impress and retain ships" – perhaps a link for impress?

Ideally yes, but the article deals only and specifically with the impressment of people, I considered a Wiktionary link, but this usage ("To seize or confiscate (property) by force. quotations ▼ The liner was impressed as a troop carrier.") is last and eighth and so I thought it would be unhelpful. Your thoughts?

"one of Philip's senior advisor's." – very odd! Why the American spelling and the superfluous possessive apostrophe?

A bad day at the office.

"they anticipated an attack by a vast host" – there is only one undisputed meaning of "anticipate", viz to be aware of (a thing) in advance and act accordingly; to forestall (a person) and take action before they do. (Fowler). The loose use of the word to mean merely "expected" is better avoided.

It seemed to me that was how I was using it here - "anticipate is associated with acting because of an expectation" - but changed to expected.

Edward's campaign

"the 3,000 men who Edward had gathered" – "whom", please.

Whoops!

Move to Vannes

"and called a conference of war" – I defer to your undoubted expertise in this field, but isn't "a council of war" the normal term?

A desperate attempt to avoid over-close paraphrasing, but I think you are right.

Siege of Vannes

"The main English army marched unopposed some 120 miles (190 km) through southern Brittany without opposition." – they marched unopposed without opposition. Well, they would, wouldn't they?

Just trying to impress it firmly on a reader, honest guv. Fixed.

Truce

"The French were perturbed by Edward landing in Brittany" – it was the landing not the man that perturbed the French: "Edward's landing" would be preferable, I think.

You are - obviously - quite right.

"each had felt it was beneficial to them." – unnecessary plural: each king felt it was beneficial to him.

Done.

Aftermath

"all of the English would leave" – do we want the "of" here?

Escorted off the premises.

Notes

"By English common law, the crown was required to compensate the owners of ships" – I think "the Crown" when used to mean "the state" is normally capitalised.

Really! Ok.

That's my lot. Another top-notch Hundred Years' War article rolls off the Gog production line. Clearly destined for FA. Looking forward to revisiting and, I'm sure, supportingTim riley talk 12:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My gratitude knows no bounds. I would much like to retain you permanently to copy edit my articles, but sadly doubt that I could afford your rates. Many thanks for dragging this kicking and screaming up to scratch. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]