Talk:Halton Castle

GA on hold

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have put the article on hold until the following issues are addressed.

1. For the "Site" section, I think you should either expand on this (which may be difficult) or make it a subsection under one of the larger sections. Right now, it is not a very good start for the article to only have a few lines for the first section. Also, "This has in turn in the 20th century" should be reworded a little better.
2. "When the 15th baron, Henry Bolingbroke ascended the throne as King Henry IV the castle became part of the Duchy of Lancaster" Add a period at the end of the sentence.
3. "It is likely" is used a few too many times in the history section. Consider rewording some of the occurrences.
4. "There is little evidence of any visits by eminent people to the castle although there is a belief that in 1207 King John did visit the castle and gave a gift of £5 towards the upkeep of its chapel." Add an inline citation for this.
5. "The Parliamentarians held the castle for a while but then" How long is a while? Specify a little more.
6. "In 1728 George Cholmondeley, 2nd Earl of Cholmondeley leased the site from the Crown" Add a period at the end of the sentence.
7. "The court continued to function here until 1908." Continued to function "there".
8. "The walls of the castle are in a ruinous state but the circumference is intact and it is possible to walk completely round the exterior." Completely "around".
9. "The castle is a Grade I listed building and the Castle Hotel is listed Grade II*." What is the purpose of the asterisk?

Once you have addressed the above issues within seven days, I will pass the article. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or when you are done fixing these. --Nehrams2020 05:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Response

1. I agree, have incorporated the section into the lead, where I think it sits better and have deleted some irrelevant material.
2. Done
3. Done
4. Done
5. We do not know. I have looked at all the references again, and some additional ones, but there is no precise information about this. I have therefore re-worded the sentence which I think now reads better.
6. Done
7. Done
8. Done
9. See explanation here

Many thanks. Peter I. Vardy 10:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

GA passed

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have passed the article. Good work on fixing the above suggestions so quickly. Continue to expand the article with any new information, making sure it is properly sourced. If you have the time, please help review an article or two at GAC to help with the backlog. Every time that a new reviewer helps, the waiting time for reviews decreases. Again, good work, and keep improving the quality of articles on Wikipedia! --Nehrams2020 17:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Halton Castle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I have done a GA Reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps project. I find the article to still meet the GA Criteria. As such I will keep the article as GA. Only one minor edit had to be done and there is nothing glaringly wrong with the article that would give me pause. H1nkles (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Who makes this up?

I know I should just walk away from this train wreck but sometimes my professional and academic hubris gets the better of me. Particularly as a San Diego resident has the power to think this is a "good article"? Good grief, they don't even understand basic historical practice. It's akin to a plumber checking the work of a heart surgeon. Firstly:

1. "Although there is no surviving evidence, it is likely that Halton Hill was a settlement in prehistoric times." Really? If there is no archaeological evidence, then the conclusion drawn from the proposition is without any merit. As this is based on secondary or even third party sources, where is the material on finds from the site? The claim is baseless without a shred of evidence!
2. "Following the Norman conquest, the Barony of Halton was established by Hugh Lupus, Earl of Chester. The first baron to be appointed was Nigel of Cotentin and it is almost certain that he would have built a motte and bailey castle on the site, constructing it from wood" Really? Is there any chance that it might have been a ring work? Again an unintentional but common misconception - the Normans built a variety of fortifications mostly commonly ring works or motte and baileys. They even built stone castles too. See Cheptow.
3. "although the excavations in 1986–87 showed no evidence of a motte and bailey structure or of a timber tower or palisade." I rest my case. Contradictory supposition without an explanation as to why a motte and bailey is preferred.
4. "It is most probable that during the 12th century the wooden structure was replaced by a castle built from the local sandstone although no documentary evidence of this remains." So there is no evidence that the castle was rebuilt in stone after the 11th century. It therefore might have been begun in stone because it stands on an ideal building material = a rocky sandstone promontory. As the Normans were already using sandstone building Chester Cathedral, why not here?
5. "Details of the building works are obscure" - explain? Does that means there are records or none at all? "but it has been suggested - by whom? that John of Gaunt, the 14th baron, made alterations to the castle but this again has not been confirmed by documentary evidence." So again a throwaway statement which is not supported by any presentable evidence.

This article is laudable. It's been put together using Original Research from third-party publications due to Wikipedia's own requirement to have sources. But this overlooks the good academic practice of first reading primary documents to establish their veracity and testing that with archaeological data/research obtained from the test site. Academically this article contains no analysis and methodology to check any of the claims cited by the reference that it uses. The narrative is therefore without basis, and yet, Wikipedia classes this as a great article. Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.111.16 (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Halton Castle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070901235840/http://www.haltoncastle.org/ to http://www.haltoncastle.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Halton Castle/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I've copied and pasted a comment from the talk page, it dates from 2010, however all of the points made are valid and unchanged apart from an attempt by me to remedy the situation. My own research indicates there is likely original research in this article, and even if it doesn't have any OR this is dreadfully poorly written and missing information. The last GAR was in 2009. Szzuk (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Who makes this up?

I know I should just walk away from this train wreck but sometimes my professional and academic hubris gets the better of me. Particularly as a San Diego resident has the power to think this is a "good article"? Good grief, they don't even understand basic historical practice. It's akin to a plumber checking the work of a heart surgeon. Firstly:

1. "Although there is no surviving evidence, it is likely that Halton Hill was a settlement in prehistoric times." Really? If there is no archaeological evidence, then the conclusion drawn from the proposition is without any merit. As this is based on secondary or even third party sources, where is the material on finds from the site? The claim is baseless without a shred of evidence!
2. "Following the Norman conquest, the Barony of Halton was established by Hugh Lupus, Earl of Chester. The first baron to be appointed was Nigel of Cotentin and it is almost certain that he would have built a motte and bailey castle on the site, constructing it from wood" Really? Is there any chance that it might have been a ring work? Again an unintentional but common misconception - the Normans built a variety of fortifications mostly commonly ring works or motte and baileys. They even built stone castles too. See Cheptow.
3. "although the excavations in 1986–87 showed no evidence of a motte and bailey structure or of a timber tower or palisade." I rest my case. Contradictory supposition without an explanation as to why a motte and bailey is preferred.
4. "It is most probable that during the 12th century the wooden structure was replaced by a castle built from the local sandstone although no documentary evidence of this remains." So there is no evidence that the castle was rebuilt in stone after the 11th century. It therefore might have been begun in stone because it stands on an ideal building material = a rocky sandstone promontory. As the Normans were already using sandstone building Chester Cathedral, why not here?
5. "Details of the building works are obscure" - explain? Does that means there are records or none at all? "but it has been suggested - by whom? that John of Gaunt, the 14th baron, made alterations to the castle but this again has not been confirmed by documentary evidence." So again a throwaway statement which is not supported by any presentable evidence.

This article is laudable. It's been put together using Original Research from third-party publications due to Wikipedia's own requirement to have sources. But this overlooks the good academic practice of first reading primary documents to establish their veracity and testing that with archaeological data/research obtained from the test site. Academically this article contains no analysis and methodology to check any of the claims cited by the reference that it uses. The narrative is therefore without basis, and yet, Wikipedia classes this as a great article. Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.111.16 (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delisted. No action has occurred. Szzuk (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)