Talk:Thetford Castle

Untitled

Red Castle is not on the same site as Castle Hill. Red Castle is south of the Little Ouse to the west (about 2km).Check Brekland or Norfolk Council online files for accurate data. RI Carling (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 23:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Claiming this one now, review to follow in the next few minutes. Looks like an interesting topic. J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• "An earth and timber fort had been built on the site during the" You've not really introduced a "site", as it were

• Tweaked. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• "called Red Castle" Was called that at the time? I'm assuming that isn't an Old English term?

• I removed the "was" - the sources I've got all just call it "Red Castle"; I'm assuming the original would be Latin though. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• "was probably built shortly after the Norman conquest of England by William de Warenne, the Earl of Surrey." I'm wondering on what ground you say "probably"- why is this theory more "official" than the alternative?

• Sadly you won't usually get "official" lines on English castles or archaeological sites in general. Instead, you'll have a sequence of studies that promote particular arguments and provide new evidence for particular views. The problem for a wiki article (or any encyclopedia) is that we're then trying to amalgamate that into a readable text, taking into account that newer material is likely to be better informed by data, but not giving undue weight to minority views. In the case of Thetford, Everson and Jecock are relatively recent (research up to 1994), but they are in a distinct minority in the published academic press; most writers have dated it (literally in some cases) "probably" in this way. Everson and Jecock admit that they are arguing that it only "may" have been built differently, and note that current "scholarly views" disagreed with them.Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• "in the process cutting off the local church from the inside of the town" What does this mean?

• I've tried to clarify it in the main text - imagine a circular ringwork, which encloses the old church so no-one can get at it. See if the main text works any better now... Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Archaeologists Paul Everson and Marcus Jecock argue that the castle may have been built by William de Warenne or William the Conqueror." Again, I'm not seeing why this theory has been relegated to a footnote?

• As per the above - I think that the article needs to capture the majority academic view in a way that's easy for the reader, while not excluding minority interpretations. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• "recent work by archaeologists Paul Everson and Marcus Jecock has speculated" Recent work has speculated?

• Changed. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Hugh then joined" Bigod?

• Expanded. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• "the Castle Yard was in use" As what? Also, why capitals?

• It's capitalised in the original, which isn't untypical in Britain when referring to parts of a castle that become known as a specific location (you see the same thing in many locations, where the lower ward of a castle becomes known as the Lower Ward. The original text didn't describe what it was used as though - I'm guessing (ORthough!), by the name, as a yard (i.e. for storing material, moving items back and forward etc.) Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• "In 1772 the east bank of the outer bailey was destroyed." By who/what?

• No details in the source, unfortunately. I'd guess by farmers from the period. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Red Castle by Knocker between" Full name?

• I've only got his initial, so have added that in. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the 21st century needs its own section; it should be merged with the section above, which could even be renamed to show it's the history of the remains, rather than of the castle itself.

• I'd have preferred to call it "Today", but that's apparently not allowed under the MOS... I'm keen that it remains distinct though, as a key question for many casual readers ("what's it like today?"). Any alternative names welcomed! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Looking back at the lead section, I'm not really convinced it's appropriate- I feel like it should be completely rewritten. It seems to focus entirely on what the castle is called/what the name refers to, rather than telling us about the castle itself. I'd recommend something like-

Thetford Castle is a a medieval motte and bailey castle in the market town of Thetford in the Breckland area of Norfolk, England. Built [...details...] It was built upon Red Castle, a probable 11th century Norman ringwork. [...brief history...] ...although the huge motte, the second largest man-made mound in England, remained intact. The motte, recognised as a scheduled monument, now forms part of a local park, and is known variously as Castle Hill, Castle Mound and Military parade.

• Another oddity is the fact that, several times, you refer to the motte as a "castle", which isn't exactly the common usage of the term.

• I wasn't sure I understood you on this bit. For historians, a motte can be a a piece of or an entire castle; in terms of local landmarks, many local communities simply call a surviving motte a castle (as "Castle Hill" in Thetford, or "Cambridge Castle" in Cambridge.) In this article, we talk about "a new motte and bailey castle", " a large timber keep on top of the motte", "the motte would have taken" and "the motte is owned ", all of which I think are quite accurate. The whole defence is definitely usually termed a castle, both in specialist texts (e.g. Everson and Jecock) and more popular ones (e.g. Pettifer). Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Category:Medieval forts in England? Category:Hill forts in Norfolk? I'm not sure; is this technically a "fort"?

• Hill forts are Late Bronze Age and Iron Age structures. While there was an earth and timber fort on the site in the Iron Age I'd want to make sure the soruces call it a hill fort. Also, the subject of the article is the medieval structure, so as the Iron Age structure is mentioned tangentially I don't think a category is necessary.

  Castle is a more specific term than fort so IMO Category:Castles in Norfolk (which the article is currently in) is more appropriate than "Medieval forsts in England"; at the moment the latter is populated by articles on just two castles and is effectively redundant to Category:Castles in England. Nev1 (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've never heard of it called a Hill Fort, I'll admit (mind you, in East Anglia, anything might be a hill!). And it's not usually termed a medieval fort, rather as a castle. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Coordinates?

• The grid reference is in the infobox. Nev1 (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Double check the formatting of your references- make sure it's consistent. I don't understand what "Everson, Paul and Marcus Jecock. (1999) "Castle Hill and the Early Medieval Development of Thetford in Norfolk," in Pattison, Field and Ainsworth (eds)." is referring to; it seems incomplete.

• Not incomplete as such, the collected volume (Pattison, Field and Ainsworth (eds)) is listed as a separate item in the bibliography. Nev1 (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yep - it just follows one of the citation styles that separates out edited volumes to avoid duplication. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad article, but there are things that need fixing. Interesting subject, though. J Milburn (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I completely forgot about this review. Having another look now. J Milburn (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I'm still finding the lead to be inadequate, and it'd be nice if the coordinates were added to the top right. I'm still not keen on separating out the 21st century (seems to be recentism) but I understand your concern. The history sections could perhaps be renamed to "Red Castle", "Bigods", "Decline and disuse" and "Castle Park"? That way, the titles chronicle the history in a glance. Just a thought; don't feel you have to do that. J Milburn (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'm with you on the lead - needs fixing - will try to do so later today! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Any progress? If you're unable to do anything at the moment, I can close the review as not passed; then, when you've done what's necessary, you can nominate it again? I'd be happy to offer another review myself, time-permitting. J Milburn (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead has been reworked - I think your suggestions worked really well! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Great, much better. I'm now happy to promote. It's not the longest article, but it's well written and researched, and seems to cover all the important information. Good job! J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)