This review is transcluded from Talk:Edward III's Breton campaign, 1342–1343/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 14:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 16:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does this one have a future at FAC as well? Hog Farm _Talk 16:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping you would tell me. But yes, I wrote it with that in mind, so if you fancy giving it a thorough going over that would be appreciated. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason that it isn't standardized between Hundred Years War and Hundred Years' War

Yes: poor proof reading skills. My error corrected. The remaining instances are the actual titles.

• Not so much a thing for this article, but should this be included in Template:Campaignbox Breton War of Succession?

Absolutely, it is now.

• "had extreme difficulty in assembling ships,[note 2] despite draconian measures taken by Admiral Robert Morley. Once sufficient had been impressed, contrary winds caused caused the English departure to be repeatedly put back" - is this an earlier, separate event from "But on that date not a single requisitioned ship was present. Morley applied a heavy-handed policy of threats and confiscations which bore fruit, and 440 ships were requisitioned. " in the next paragraph?

Gah, I really need a separate paragraph on the shipping. I'll see if I can make it more readable. I had made a hash of that. I think it reads better now. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Also to standardize - Robert of Artois vs Robert of Artoix

"Artoix"! Fixed,

• "The ships' captains were frustrated at having been requisitioned for up to three months and aware there was little left of the sailing season they deserted en route. When the rest arrived at the English ports there was not enough transport capacity for even half of Edward's force. " - is it known about what proportion of the ships were taken out of the expedition by deserting captains?

It is, I was concerned about getting too much into the undergrowth and was saving it for an over-arching article. But seeing as you mention it, added.

Correction: not added. I was misremembering - the number of ships deserting after Edward landed is known and is already given, but the number deserting after Northampton's landing, eg before Edward embarked, is not known, although examples are given. Eg "forty-five ships of Dartmouth and the whole fleet of Hull". Sorry. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it intention that the Channel is only linked on the second mention in the article?

Very dry. Fixed.

• Infobox has less than 5,000 for the English but is this right? There's 234 with Mauny plus the 1,350 in August 1342 and then Robert of Artois' 800 and then 3,000 with Edward in October 1342 which would be 5,384 unless some of these are included in some of the other totals?

Well audited. I was thinking with Edward at any one time, but I guess the article is a bit wider than that. Tweaked.

This is in excellent shape; let me know when this goes to FAC and I'll support. Hog Farm _Talk 03:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HF, about my usual quota of sloppy copy editing. All addressed. I added the date on the end of the name of the article but - given that this was Edward's first visit to Brittany and that he never returned - I am now wondering if it should go; ie be moved to Edward III's Breton campaign. Do you have a view? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing some use of both forms on GBooks, but I would personally support a move to the simpler title without the year, as I don't think it's necessary. I'll try to look back over this tomorrow. Hog Farm _Talk 05:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, between this and FAC I'll move it to the shorter form. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]