Talk:Wressle Castle

New draft

Hello, I've prepared an extended draft at User:Richard Nevell/sandbox. Since it mentions work of the Castle Studies Trust and I'm on the charity's board I would appreciate it if someone could have a look and check that the balance is ok. Then if everyone's happy I'd like to copy the contents over to this article. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks OK for balance at a quick read through. Probably some copy edits and changes needed in places. I could do those in the draft but then a history merge would then be required to preserve the edit history. Keith D (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Copy edits very much appreciated! I'll leave it up to you where those edits take place (sandbox or here). Richard Nevell (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hchc2009: do you have any thoughts on the article? Richard Nevell (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Will take a quick look on Thursday night Richard. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. Looks balanced and reasonable to me - nice work! Hope the Trust is going well. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you :) I'll copy the text over later today. I'll look for a bit more detail on the structure and see if I can take the article to GAN. The Trust's work is certainly interesting and luckily some of the projects have been fitting with my own research. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 07:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll read through and start the review proper later on today. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Well-written:

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

• I'd usually advise giving inline attribution to quotes like 'Wressle Castle was built “as a residence reflecting [the Earl’s] pedigree and distinguished state service”' to make it clear that it is Emery's voice, rather someone cited in Emery.
• "Eric John Fisher suggested" - can we say who Fisher was? (e.g. "the historian Eric John Fisher"?)
• "whether this was a previous manorial centre, or whether it was an entirely new site." - may be worth tweaking this slightly; we both know that "previous" means "prior to Norman invasion", but the reader may not.
• "late 15th century" - should this be "late-15th century"? I can never remember.
• "was made private with a brick wall" - unclear if this means it was always private with a wall, or if it wasn't originally private and was later made so.
• Minor, but the rest of the article talks about ranges in the castle; this isn't picked up in the architecture section though; not necessarily inconsistent, but it read oddly to me

• I think it's 'late-15th century' - that one tends to fox me too. I've gone ahead and made those changes, and explained who Emery is since he's now mentioned in the text. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

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

• Could the lead describe the castle's architecture in outline?

• I've added a little in. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

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;

• Is Fisher 1954 or 1955? (you give both!)
• One use of Holye 2004b (spelling)
• fn 26 - Emery needs a "|" after it before the year
• "Ed Dennison Archaeological Services 2015, pp. 7–8" - the biblio gives the authors here as Richardson, Shaun and Dennison, Ed, rather than the Archaeological Services organisation (and the harvnb link won't work as a result!)
• Worth checking the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography dates; I think you're using the on-line editions, which were published in 2008 rather than 2004.
• v. minor, but there's an inconsistency in whether just the publisher is given, or publisher and location.

• I think I've got most of them. Not sure how I managed to confuse 1954 with 1995 for the Fisher reference though. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2016 (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;

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

• None found.

Broad in its coverage:

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

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

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

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

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

• Appears neutral at this point. Hchc2009 (talk)

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

• Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2016 (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;

• All fine. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

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

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to review the article, your feedback was very useful. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)