Talk:Siege of Brest (1342)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Brest (1342)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 22:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 20:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More shortly, Tim riley talk 20:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

First comments

As usual, my comments are on the prose rather than on the substance, and are mostly for you to accept or reject as you think fit:

• "Fourteen mercenary Geonese galleys" – spelling

LOL! Fixed.

• "The English ships only carried fighting 1,350 men" – order word strange seems: perhaps "carried only 1,350 fighting men"?

Done.

• "a force far inferior to that of the French army" – numerically inferior no doubt, but this looks a touch judgemental.

Changed to "smaller".

• "they anticipated an attack by a vast host" – "they" being whom?

they → the French

• " but while the dukes of Brittany were vassals of the French kings they governed the duchy" – I'd be a bit careful about "while" here: you mean "although", I think, but it reads in a temporal sense that I'm not sure you intend.

Ah, good point. Changed to "and although".

• "his younger half brother" – the OED hyphenates half-brother.

Still!? Ah well.

• "a well connected and militarily orientated" – we've been here before: well-connected needs a hyphen and orientated is a pointlessly inflated version of oriented.

I seem to have copied in the old version. Sorry Tim. Changed

• " to encourage active English intervention" – as opposed to passive intervention?

Can I answer yes. Not unknown in diplomatic circles. "to encourage English military intervention"

• "at least partially under his control" – partly is preferable to partially here because shorter and can't be confused with the other meaning of partial viz biased

Changed.

• "in the face of Charles huge military superiority" – needs a possessive apostrophe. As to where the apostrophe belongs, see below.

And also see below.

• "The King relied on requisitioning the merchant vessels of English traders, these were largely vessels known as cogs" – stronger stop than a comma needed here/

:

• "This force was far inferior to that of the French" – see my earlier comments on this phrase in the lead

Similarly treated.

• "Charles' army" – I'm dithering about this. If Charles is to be pronounced à la française then plain ess-apostrophe is right, but as John isn't Jean in your text and Philip isn't Philippe I think we are firmly in the realm of anglicised renderings of French names, and so Charles would be pronounced with an "s" on the end and the possessive would be Charles's.

Um. That is not how I pronounce it. But my ignorance is of near-epic proportions. I have reworded the three places where this arises to duck the issue.

• "but was defeated battle of Morlaix" – missing a couple of words, I think.

Would you believe summary style? No? Additional words inserted.

• "as the Hundred Year's War" – apostrophe in the wrong place.

I just cracked up. I really did that?

That's my lot. Nothing there to stop me promoting this fine article to GA but you may like to consider some or all of my suggestions before I do so. I'm not going to bother putting the review on formal hold, and over to you. Tim riley talk 20:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I much appreciate this Tim. Not being a complete idiot (the exact percentage is a matter of ongoing scholarly debate) I have gone with all of your fine suggestions. I imagine that the article will be appearing at a FAC near you before too long. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Well that didn't take long, did it? Stand back and give me room to cut the ribbon:

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria In my judgment this article could be a worthy candidate for WP:FAC.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I found this an interesting and instructive article to review. It gives me much pleasure to affirm its GA-status. Pray ping me when you go to FAC. - Tim riley talk 23:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)