Template:Did you know nominations/Monmouth Town Walls and Defenses
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Monmouth Town Walls and Defences
edit
- ... that, aside from Monnow Bridge Gatehouse, the only standing portion that remains of Monmouth Town Walls and Defences is attached to a pub (pictured)?
- Reviewed: Barbara Robbins
- Comment: MonmouthpediA
Created/expanded by ACP2011 (talk). Self nom at 23:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't read the article but I would like to point out that in "English" English, "defence" is spelled with a "c". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. I had initially written the article with a 'c' in the title. But I changed it when I moved it to article space yesterday because I realized that this American would then have to learn how to spell all of the article in British English. For someone still new to Wikipedia, the thought is overwhelming. Anne (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think Ive "translated" it for you. Seems better that it should be in Brit English if it this side of the water. Victuallers (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm uncertain about the reliability of the following sources: gatehouse-gazetteer.info, castlewales.com, britainexpress.com, visitoruk.com. Could you explain why you think those are reliable sources per WP:RS.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Refs removed or improved Victuallers (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- gatehouse-gazetteer.info is still in there and I'm still uncertain it's reliable.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will go through article again, but right now I've been expending most of my available mental energy and time on a DYK article I wrote more than a month ago that was pulled from the MonmouthpediA queue the day before MonmouthpediA Day. I've rewritten it twice in the last 48 hours. Anne (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- This past weekend, I started researching again so I could expand a little on two mini topics in this article: St Stephen's Gate and West Gate. I believe I have them sorted out now. St Stephen's apparently was access to the bailey, while West Gate was access to the town. Found two more refs: Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust for West Gate and William Meyler Warlow's book for (West) Gate, also used Bagnall-Oakeley's lecture to make more sense of St Stephen's Gate. (And did 4th version of my April DYK this morning.) Anne (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've deleted the Gatehouse Gazetteer this afternoon, and I'm still in the middle of adding additional references and inline citations. I wanted to let you know, though, that I think deleting the Gazetteer is a mistake. This is why: The sources used for the site are excellent. An example: This website has been the only source I have found for direct access to reproducible Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust Historic Environment Record web pages. The GGAT HER web pages that I have added that are directly viewable have come from the Gazetteer website. I only have two directly viewable GGAT HER web pages. The rest are from going on the website of the web partner of GGAT HER and doing a search. I've attached them as refs, but it requires anyone looking for the info to do a search. I've input the title for each one to help with the search, but then some one still has to input "Monmouth" and "medieval". I don't find this site any less reliable than Coflein or British Listed Buildings (or English Heritage for that matter). Apparently, there's no direct access to Cadw data. I have been stunned the last month as I try to get listing data for houses in Wales. I would say that routinely, the listing data has incorrect information or incomplete information, most often the wrong street in Monmouth or no specific address. It makes it very difficult to match up the Coflein and BLB records. I noticed the same issue in England, although perhaps not quite so pronounced. Anne (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think it was me who removed the gazetteer ref which I agree looks sound. I'm maybe being too pliant to the reviewers - by removing what I see as sound references and defend-able facts rather than debate the issues. Do feel free to debate these issues as it would be good to see these challenged. Victuallers (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm definitely open to debating the reliability of the gazetteer ref. As I stated originally, the source doesn't look reliable to me, yet it could be. WP:RS calls for "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If you can point to some evidence that the gazetteer website has such a reputation, I'd be fine with it. However, I don't think that the fact that it cites reliable sources is good enough. I also just noticed that footnote 18 refers to flickr. I don't know if that was introduced recently or if I just overlooked it, but that's user-generated content. Also, the information in the sentence that precedes it is not contained in either source 18 or source 17.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Victuallers and Carabinieri. Yes, you removed one Gatehouse Gazetteer reference on May 22nd and I removed the other Gatehouse Gazetteer reference on May 23rd (see "deleted ref of concern"). The flickr ref was mine, I believe. I meant to include it primarily as an external link for the picture of the new bridge, but I must have left it with the references. It's moot now, because it's apparently been removed. I think that the new refs that have been added are otherwise reliable and helpful to the article and I think it's ready to be reviewed again. However, I still believe that the Gatehouse, while not perfect, is a good source. However, I have no experience in defending the reputation of a website, other than looking at the sources that it employs. As I mentioned above, it has great sources and is impressive with regard to the links that it provides to a number of those sources. I was particularly impressed with the GGAT HER links. Frankly, these days, I am not impressed with so many sources that have been traditionally deemed "reliable." Just take a look at the news and all the media bias. It's criminal. In addition, while some of the reduced quality of journalism may be due to understaffing, I suspect that there is an element of laziness at work as well. Anne (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
(my involvement in this article has just been in removing bits that were being challenged). I'm more than happy with this article. Victuallers (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
