Talk:Baynard's Castle/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 18:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll read through and start the review over the next couple of days. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I should be able to address any concerns, though it's not technically my article (was written a ways back, i just stumbled on it). Wizardman 02:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Cheers - I've made some minor ce points on the last bits of the text, looks good to go. Thanks for your patience! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

• "The original castle was built at the point where the old Roman walls and River Fleet met the River Thames, just east of what is now Blackfriars station, a strategic location that matched the Tower of London to the east of the City." I couldn't understand from this how it matched the Tower of London's position.
• "took the crown at the castle." uncertain what this meant - "were coronated at the castle"?
• "Page suggests that" - who's Page? (suggest "Historian William Page suggests that"
• "This may be the Bainiardus" - The gap between Baynard and this sentence means that this wasn't easy to follow.
• "The soke was coterminous with the parish of St. Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe, which was adjacent to the Norman castle,[8] and roughly corresponds to the eponymous ward of the City of London." - I couldn't work out which the ward was referring to (St Andrew, or Baynard Castle's soke).

  These issues fixed, will do the minor ones soon as well. Wizardman 00:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Minor (not necessary for GA status):

• " The first was a Norman fortification" - worth linking Norman
• "According to Sir Walter Besant," - worth explaining who Walter is, e.g. "According to the Victorian historian Sir Walter Besant,..."
• " It appears to have been rebuilt after the barons' revolt" - worth linking to the "First Barons' War"
• "great priory of Blackfriars" - worth linking to Blackfriars, London
• "Catherine Parr's brother-in-law, the Earl of Pembroke" - needs a matching comma after Pembroke
• " the Civil War," - needs linking to English Civil War
• " the strategic importance of the junction of the Fleet and the Thames means that the area was probably fortified from early times" - "meant that" - it is not longer strategically important.
• " in the hands of the king" - MOS would have this as "the King"
• " On 14 January 1213 the king destroyed " ditto
• "the king's submission " ditto
• " Edward I" (II, and III) - worth linking on first use (Edward I is linked in a later paragraph)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• Some inconsistencies in citation style; sometimes the location is given, e.g. "London: A. & C. Black", other times not, "Oxford University Press".
• Stow, John (1598), Kingsford, C.L., ed., A Survey of London, by John Stow: Reprinted from the text of 1603 (published 1908), pp. 60–68, retrieved 2010-06-20. The formatting of this doesn't look write; the 1598 date isn't mentioned in title of the 1908 volume, and isn't listed on the bibliographic record at OCLC. The source used here asks for it to be cited by the 1908 publication date.
• "Kingsford's notes on Stow's text." - consistency here would give the year for the publication, e.g. Kingsford (1908) or similar
• "Lobel's 1989 reconstruction places Legate's Inn to the NE of St Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe, the 1873 Ordnance Survey map puts it on the river, on the site of the second Baynard's Castle." - this needs the information that is in the External Links section to make sense
• Some page numbers are as "p29", others as "p. 162". Either is fine, but they should be consistent.
• The "2009ii" format threw me initially; it's perfectly legitimate at GA, but it did seem unusual.,
• Not essential at GA, but the titles of works should be capitalised (e.g. "Abbeys, Castles and Halls...") Hchc2009 (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  All referencing issues now addressed. Wizardman 21:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

• Appears neutral at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Yes.

I'll work on the ref issues shortly. Just holding off until the review is complete so I can knock out everything at once. Wizardman 18:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)