Could be a bit fuller. Ideally (especially if you have eventual FAC in mind) the lead should summarise everything that follows in the text. You might touch very briefly on Anglo-French relations, the current control of Gascon terrritory and Edward III's three-pronged attack.
"They captured the large, weakly garrisoned castles of Montravel and Monbreton on the Dordogne in early June; they were taken by surprise" – better make it clear that the first "they" are the English and the second "they" are the castles. (Also in the Battle of Auberoch article, now I look again.)
"A number of local French groups … a number of minor nobles" – another slightly noticeable repetition – "several" or some such for one of them would do the trick.
Done.
Battle
"the panic stricken French" – hyphen wanted, I think.
Done.
"Aramagnac" – as opposed to Coganac, no doubt.
And his peers, the Baron of Beaujolais and the Duke of Damassine.
Excellent. Clearly of GA standard. Before I cut the ribbon could you just explain what is meant by "contra Sumption" at footnote 44? My vestigial Latin (1960s vintage) takes me as far as a literal translation, but I'm not sure what it is meant to convey to the reader here. Tim riley talk 10:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Afterthought: I have just spotted that Note 4, about the Savoy Palace, could do with a citation. Tim riley talk10:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Tim riley: Good spot. I inherited it. It is supposed to mean 'contrary to Sumption's statement on this page'. However, investigating a little further before I replied I discover that Rogers also holds this view. (It was conflated with his views on the details of the "running battle" and I had missed it.) Given that it is not just a lone dissenting voice, I think that I can no longer get away with a brief footnote. I will need to rewrite to reflect the scholarly diversity. Thanks for saving me from embarrassment. I will get back to you once it is done.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
14:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)reply