Talk:Piel Castle
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Hchc2009 in topic Cross-referencing the article on Gleaston Castle
 | Piel Castle has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 19, 2013. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Expansion...
editI've gone through and given the article a thorough scrub - everything should have inline citations now etc. I've been bold and switched the lead image - this one seemed to get in more detail of the castle itself. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Cross-referencing the article on Gleaston Castle
editWhile putting together the article on Gleaston Castle the architectural similarity in using one type of stone as the main building material while picking out details in another (both using red sandstone) stuck out. It's perhaps a small point but is it worth adding a short mention of the link? Richard Nevell (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Does Newman draw out the comparison? There's potentially a slight risk of OR here... Hchc2009 (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've just rechecked Contrebis (the source used) as well as TCWAAS (1 and 2) and she doesn't actually mention Gleaston. Best to leave out then? Richard Nevell (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Probably... although there's no doubt an academic article to be written about how builders of the period chose which stone to use for the main walls and detailing etc. - seems to have moved in fashions. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've just rechecked Contrebis (the source used) as well as TCWAAS (1 and 2) and she doesn't actually mention Gleaston. Best to leave out then? Richard Nevell (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)