diff --git a/article_de_rham_cyclic.synctex.gz b/article_de_rham_cyclic.synctex.gz
index 604f2dc..952065e 100644
Binary files a/article_de_rham_cyclic.synctex.gz and b/article_de_rham_cyclic.synctex.gz differ
diff --git a/article_de_rham_cyclic.tex b/article_de_rham_cyclic.tex
index 1e339b2..79ec5a4 100644
--- a/article_de_rham_cyclic.tex
+++ b/article_de_rham_cyclic.tex
@@ -133,9 +133,17 @@ hyperref, bbm, mathtools, mathrsfs}
 \section{Introduction}
 %
 The classical Chevalley--Weil formula (cf. ????) gives an explicit description
-of the equivariant structure of the cohomology of a curve with a group action over a field of characteristic~$0$. It is hard to expect such a formula over fields of characteristic~$p$.
-Indeed, if $G$ is a finite group with a non-cyclic $p$-Sylow subgroup, the set of indecomposable $k[G]$-modules is infinite. If, moreover, $p > 2$ then the indecomposable $k[G]$-modules are considered impossible to classify (cf. ???). This brings attention to groups
-with ???
+of the equivariant structure of the cohomology of a curve $X$ with a group action over a field of characteristic~$0$. Their formula depends on the so-called \emph{fundamental characters} of points $x \in X$ that are ramified in the cover $X \to X/G$. ????
+
+It is hard to expect such a formula over fields of characteristic~$p$.
+Indeed, if $G$ is a finite group with a non-cyclic $p$-Sylow subgroup, the set of indecomposable $k[G]$-modules is infinite. If, moreover, $p > 2$ then the indecomposable $k[G]$-modules are considered impossible to classify (cf. ???). There are many results concerning equivariant structure of cohomologies for particular curves (cf. ????), groups (cf. ????). Also, one may expect that that (at least in the case of $p$-groups) determining cohomologies comes down to Harbater--Katz--Gabber covers (cf. ???). However, there is no hope of obtaining a result similar to the one of Chevalley and Weil.\\
+
+This brings attention to groups with cyclic $p$-Sylow subgroup. For those, the set of indecomposable modules is finite (cf. ???). Even though for this ?????
+
+
+The article~\cite{Bleher_Chinburg_Kontogeorgis_Galois_structure} shows that in this case,
+the $k[G]$-module structure of $H^0(X, \Omega_X)$ is determined by the lower ramification groups and the fundamental characters of the ramification locus. The representation theory of those groups is
+
 
 \begin{mainthm}
 	Suppose that $G$ is a group with a $p$-cyclic Sylow subgroup.
@@ -145,7 +153,9 @@ with ???
 \end{mainthm}
 %
 Note that if $p > 2$ and the $p$-Sylow subgroup of $G$ is not cyclic, the structure
-of $H^1_{dR}(X)$ isn't determined uniquely by the ramification data, see \cite{garnek_indecomposables}.
+of $H^1_{dR}(X)$ isn't determined uniquely by the ramification data. Indeed, see \cite{garnek_indecomposables} for an example of a family of $\ZZ/p \times \ZZ/p$-covers
+with the same ramification data, but different $k[G]$-module structure of $H^0(X, \Omega_X)$ and
+$H^1_{dR}(X)$.
 
 \section{Cyclic covers}
 %