Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Dolwyddelan Castle

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Iazyges (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Dolwyddelan Castle

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): A.D.Hope (talk)

Dolwyddelan Castle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Dolwyddelan is a small castle in a remote part of Snowdonia, Wales, which is important primarily as an example of a native Welsh fortification and for its associations with Llywelyn the Great and his grandson Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. It is also interesting for its links to medieval Welsh government, the locally-prominent Wynn family, and as an example of Victorian 'restoration'.

The article was very recently promoted to GA status thanks to a wonderfully-handled review by User:Mertbiol, who suggested I 'immediately' go for an A-Class review, so that's what I've done! My long-term aim is to produce a featured topic equivalent to Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd which covers the major native Welsh fortifications and llys (courts), with this being the first article in that process. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

edit

A few minor quibbles:

  • "Dolwyddelan Castle was likely built by Llywelyn the Great ... It likely replaced ... This was likely reached" – unexpected and not very welcome American constructions here. The Guardian's excellent style guide says this:
In the UK, if not the US, using likely in such contexts as “they will likely win the game” sounds unnatural at best; there is no good reason to use it instead of probably. If you really must do so, however, just put very, quite or most in front of it and all will, very likely, be well.
I'd stick with "probably" in all three cases in this article.
  • 'Likely' in its adverbial sense isn't listed as a US usage in the OED, so I've kept it in some instances but changed others to 'probably' for the sake of variety. I'm quite relaxed about using perceived Americanisms where they're originally BrE.
  • If the usage is that objectionable I won't be stubborn about keeping it. Assuming it is an Americanism it could be one of those which has reached the point where it seems natural to some readers but not others, with the pair of us on either side of the divide. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between 1283 and 1292 there are records of repairs" – there are still those records, presumably, and something on the lines of "there are records of repairs from between 1283 and 1292" would be more accurate.
  • It was easier to remove the reference to records entirely, given they're not directly quoted.
  • "including the mock drains and battlements" – what on earth are mock drains?
  • They're the fake drains which run around the top of the keep below battlement level. A blue link doesn't exist, but I've expanded the description and it's hopefully clearer now.
  • "The entrance to tower" – missing a definite article?
  • Fixed
  • "Cardonchan, Cwm Prysor, and Ewloe, although the latter is more likely" – you can't have the latter of three: you mean "the last".
  • 'Latter' can apply to the last in a group of two or more.
  • The current edition of Fowler confirms that the proper use is confined to the second of two, though the current editor, Butterfield, notes that the lax use with three or more is seen increasingly often. I suppose the question arises, when does an allegedly 'wrong' use become right because it has become the predominant one (e.g., perhaps, 'decimate', 'regular' for 'frequent', 'who for whom' and 'refute' for 'rebut')? Not yet, in this case, I think. If one wants well-read readers to take one seriously it's wise, I think, to stick to traditional usage until it has definitely passed from orthodoxy into pedantry. But it's your prose and entirely up to you. Tim riley talk 17:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I would never want to wrongly accuse another editor of being a pedant, even inadvertently! Although I suspect that Fowler is a little behind the curve on this point, since responding to you it has occurred to me that 'the last' is more succinct than 'the latter' and so there's no good reason to use the second where the first will do. Consider me won over. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasing article. I hope the few points above are useful. Tim riley talk 22:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, Tim, it's much appreciated and certainly useful. I've implemented most of your recommendations fully, but where I haven't I've explained why. I'm pleased you like the article. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a stranger to MilHist and Class A reviews, but having read the instructions I think I'm on the right track in recording my support for Class A status for this excellent article. Tim riley talk 21:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Nick-D

edit

This article is in great shape, and I have only the following comments:

  • "probably begun by Llywelyn ab Iorwerth" - I'd suggest saying who they were
  • "In 1488 Maredudd ab Ieuan purchased the lease " - ditto
  • The same applies for the 'history' section
  • The 'history' section would benefit from being broken into sub-sections. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done:
  • Llywelyn is slightly tricky as the terminology of Welsh kingdoms/principalities and their rulers is quite fluid, so I've followed the lead of our artice title and identified him as 'ruler of the Kingdom of Gwynedd'.
  • Maredudd was comparatively minor gentry (unlike his descendants), so I've identified him as a 'member of a family from Eifionydd'
  • I've taken the obvious route and split history into 'early' (up to 1488) and 'late' (after 1488).
Thanks for taking the time to review the article, and if you have any further comments I'm all ears. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Sources look good - spot checks not done

Nothing major here, but some minor points:

  • Hull (2008), Kenyon (2010), Prestwick (1998), Taylor (1986), Weil (1994), Wilton (2023), : location?
  • Longley (2009): page number?
  • fn 7 points to "An Inventory..." but I'm unsure why it is is the position it is, and why RCAHWM is not abbreviated and linked, as it is elsewhere. (Suggest setting the RCAHMW as the author instead, as you have done for fn 5.)
  • Pettifer (2000): pp. 35-6 should be pp. 35-36

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking over the images and sources, it's much appreciated.
  • I've added publication locations to Kenyon, Prestwich, and Taylor. Hull and Weil were hangovers from before I began editing the article and, since I can't properly access them and the points they support are also supported by other sources, I've removed both. Wilton has no publication location that I can find.
  • For Longley I'm reliant on Google Books, which unfortunately doesn't give page numbers in this case.
  • Pettifer has been corrected.
Fn 7 is in that position because those sources refer to the location of the castle, which is mentioned in the preceding sentence. The Royal Commission is abbreviated in Coflein footnotes and endnotes because they use Template:Coflein to create the citation, which automatically abbreviates the name and adds a link. For the other two RCAHWM publications I've used the full name, but I could add a link if you think it's necessary. For the short citations I've used 'Caernarvonshire: East' rather than 'RCAHMW (1956)' to avoid multiple sources with the name 'RCAHMW'. Although it's inconsistent I'd argue it's better for the reader. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

edit
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Dolwyddelan_Castle&oldid=1179365704"