Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Rochester Castle/archive1

Resolved comments from Dank

• "John laid siege to the castle and the investment was one of the largest in England up to that point.": I'm not sure what that means.
• "The war ended in 1217 with John's death and the succession of his son as King Henry III. The castle was taken under direct royal control.": John died in 1216 and Henry III succeeded him the same year. Maybe: John died and was succeeded by his son King Henry III in 1216; the next year, the war ended and the castle was taken under direct royal control. [if the direct royal control also started in 1217]. - Dank (push to talk)
• "17s 4d": We usually link the first occurrence to £sd.
• "60 knights fees": I don't know the punctuation on this one.
• "Odo prepared Rochester Castle": I don't know what that means.
• "Its position in Kent meant it was suited to act as a base for raids on London and could harry William's forces in the county.": "could" dangles; what could harry William's forces?
• "which was under Robert, Count of Mortain's control.": Since the WP:Checklist#second comma is impossible here, I'd reword: which was controlled by Robert, Count of Mortain. - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• That was a bit jargon-y, possibly because I didn't want to repeat "siege". Instead I've reused a phrase used later in the article and it should now make sense.
• I'll come back to this one. You're right that was a bit ambiguous on my part. 1217 was in there as that's when the castle came back under royal control. I've used your phrasing. This issue crops up again later on and I've addressed that too. Nev1 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• I wasn't aware of that article, link added.
• I'll have to check this against the source. Ok I've added an apostrophe so it is now 260 knights' fees", although I'd like your opinion on it. The source says "at least sixty fees [were] assigned to [Rochester], each owing the service of one knight to the garrison". Do you think that fits or should I rephrase it? Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I've added a link. I'm hoping Ealdgyth will look at this before we're done, and if so, I'll support any recommendation she has on the phrasing. - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• The phrasing is intentionally vague as it's not clear how Odo prepared, but hopefull this will make things a little clearer.
• I've made it clear what could do the harrying.
  • Just want to be clear that there was nothing wrong with your logical flow ... it was clear it would be the garrison. It was just one of those silly prose rules ... if a word "dangles", that is, if the word looks like it's modifying some other word or phrase, but the reader can't quickly find the specific word or phrase, then sometimes the reader will get confused and hunt around for a bit. Even if, in theory, the reader should be able to figure it out, the style guides say to avoid danglers. - Dank (push to talk) 19:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Fair point, and done. Nev1 (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• "One of 48 castles mentioned in the survey, Rochester is the only case where property-owners were reimbursed for land taken off them to build a castle.": Reword without "case".
• "it was probably abandoned shortly afterwards": the castle or the rebellion?
• "it suggested a link between the two": There isn't a simple fix in general. Whenever you make a statement that suggests a conclusion, take a hard look at it. Are you saying that you've noticed a link? Are you saying that historians have suggested the link? Are you pretty sure that everyone says this, or is it one or two historians? - Dank (push to talk)
• "The role of the keep was manifold.": "role" means something different in the previous sentence, and "manifold" suggests whatever word is used should be plural. But there's a broader point of whether a topic sentence like this one is useful in the middle of the paragraph ... in my writing, if I decide I need one, then it is almost always better to have a paragraph break, to clue the reader that I'm intending a topic sentence. I generally use one if I think the reader won't be able to make sense of the examples or narrative without one. Here, the two sentences that follow are: "It visually dominated the rest of the castle, towering above its outer walls, and acted as a residence containing the castle's best accommodation. A sturdy fortification, it could also serve as a stronghold in the event of military action." I think you're talking about keeps in general ... and if you say that, "Keeps generally towered above and dominated a castle's outer walls ...", my call would be that you don't need a topic sentence to make that clearer, it's pretty clear already. - Dank (push to talk) 14:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• "Such was the importance of the keep as a symbol of Rochester it was depicted on the town's seal in the 13th century." It's a judgment call where to put this sentence, but I'd probably move it down.
• "It may have been the case that ...": reword. This is an example of a perfectly useful verbal phrase, including in scholarly contexts ... it gives the listener context so that they will get it the first time, because once the words have been spoken, they're gone. It's generally best not to use this many words to warn readers that they're about to read a speculation about motive in written text (if they don't get it, they can go back and read it again), although something shorter is often used for this purpose; here, maybe "John may have wished to regain ...". (The sources support that this is a common speculation, right?) - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• "A peace treaty, which later became known as Magna Carta, was agreed.": I've seen it with and without italics in FACs; please check around. Also, just my two cents, but I'd append: "(but not signed)". What you've said is completely accurate ... still, since "treaties" that have been "agreed" are usually signed, I can imagine readers swearing that they read in your article that Magna Carta was signed, even though you don't say that.
• "the castle's change of control to the rebels": maybe, the rebels' takeover of the castle
• "The events ... is": are
• "who seems to have switched allegiance from the king to the archbishop since John appointed him as royal constable of the castle.": "since" meaning because or after? "Because" doesn't really make sense to me; I don't see how being appointed by the king would be the cause of turning on him. If it's "after", probably say that.
• So far so good on prose down to where I stopped, Henry III, about halfway. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Why should the sentence be changed to remove "case"? I've swapped "case" for "one" but I'm not entirely happy with that, perhaps because I'm not sure what the problem is that I'm trying to fix.
  • Garner's quotes H.W. Fowler: "There is perhaps no single word so freely resorted to as a trouble-saver, and consequently responsible for so much flabby writing". See above under "It may have been the case that" ... that is, since the word "case" is used so often and so effectively in scholarly verbal communication, it winds up in scholarly writing as well ... except that the very properties that make it useful verbally work against it in writing, with the result that copyeditors tend to give it the stink-eye. Swapping it for a synonym as you did is a good idea, but I may be able to reword; I'll think about it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the explanation, I'll try to avoid "case" in future (I think recently I've started using it more). And this change is spot on IMO. Nev1 (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Made clear it was the castle.
• It is explicitly mentioned in the source. Generalising broadly and brutally: Creighton, whose work is the reference used, belongs to the "revisionist" school of castle studies which emphasises the social aspects of castles. Even amongst the military school there is a general acceptance of a link between Church and castles. Creighton is perhaps the most emphatic in this case as his approach using landscape archaeology was very influential in the field. While I feel that the statement would be uncontentious to most people who study castles, I have clarified that the suggestion is Creighton's.
• I think you're right about the topic sentence so have removed it.
  • Okay, great, but after that change, I don't think it was clear that "it" referred to the keep ... to solve that problem, I've deleted an intervening sentence and ref, you may want to re-insert it somewhere: "Most castles were built by secular nobles, but the work by Corbeil and his predecessor Gundulf provide examples of the role of the church in castle building.<ref>{{harvnb|Liddiard|2003|pp=3–4}}</ref> ". - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
    • The sentence you removed is one of those points which is worth noting in the article but doesn't fit easily into the narrative. So rather than re-add it to one of the sections on the castle's history, I've moved it to the architecture section. Nev1 (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• The bit about the town seal doesn't really fit in its current position if a rigidly chronological approach is taken, but I wasn't sure where else to include it. The rest of the paragraph is pretty much all about the keep so I thought that would be the best fit. If it was to be moved I think the best place would be at the end of the second paragraph of the architecture section.
• Fair enough, I've opted for your wording.
• Our article on John (an FA) italicises it I'm following its lead. Our article on Magna Carta itself has the title in italics while the body doesn't, but it's not an FA and the article on Rochester Castle is at least consistent within itself. I've also added the parenthesis as you suggested.
• I like your suggested phrasing as it's simpler so have added it in.
• I'm going to pretend that mistake was intentional to check readers were paying attention.
• I swapped "since" for "after". Nev1 (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Continuing ... I'm out of time, so I'll just point and grunt.
• "with the support by the barons": support of the barons?
• "It was in this context": the connection isn't clear
• "In 1230–1231, a stone wall dividing the castle's enclosure into two parts was built": The dash is usually accepted for this purpose in Wikipedia, but I don't recognize it as common in publishing, and I don't like it, because some readers will think you're talking about a fiscal year or some other period that spanned those two years, and other readers will assume that if you meant "in 1230 and 1231", you would have said that.
• "Henry III's reign was in crisis in 1258, having recently suffered defeat in Wales, agricultural problems leading to a famine, and worsening relations with the pope.": nonparallel
• "led to Henry promising reform": led Henry to promise reform
• "Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, raised rebellion.": not sure; raised a rebellion?
• "were fought back, however he was successful ...": were fought back, but he was successful
• "may have been used burn the bridge": missing word
• "was no fighting, however hostilities ...", "the tower, however the siege ...", "cost around £600, however another": ... but ...
• "burnt out ruins": burnt-out ruins (I'm not entirely on board, but this seems to be Wikipedia style.)
• "It has been suggested that when figures of £66 10s and £91 13s were spent in 1384–1388 and 1395–1397 respectively may have been partially in response to damage incurred during the revolt.": A word might be missing. - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Changed to of.
• The phrase has been removed.
• The source used 1230–1231, I think because it is referring to a fiscal year, so what course would you recommend?
  • If there's evidence the year was divided up that way, then explain that to the readers; if not, then "in 1230 and 1231" works. - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    • For a simple life I've opted for "1230 and 1231". Nev1 (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• What do you think of this?
• Done.
• I think it works either way but have added "a" to be on the safe side.
• Replaced "however" with "but".
• "to" added.
• "howevers" replaced.
• Hyphen added.
• Word added. Nev1 (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I went with "It has been suggested that the £66 10s spent in 1384–1388 and the £91 13s spent in 1395–1397 may ..."; correct me if that's not scholarly BritEng. It might help to add "on repairs" or "on maintenance" or "by X". - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    • That works for me. Nev1 (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• "In 1960 excavations were carried out on Boley Hill with the intention of uncovering its origin, however the issue was not resolved.": That could be tighter.
• "Between 1962 and 1965 the council removed building from the castle's ditch.": ?
• "Since 1995 the City of Rochester has been responsible for managing the castle on a day-to-day basis. Issues of conservation are an important consideration for English Heritage.": I'm not sure about the flow here. Perhaps "Issues" should start a new paragraph, but I'm not sure if that fixes it.
• "in the 1970s, 1990s, and the turn of the century": nonparallel
• "however there were concerns that it would change the environment within the building.": "however" is too ponderous for this context, "it" dangles, and "environment" can mean a lot of different things.
• "The castle is a Scheduled Monument, which means it is a "nationally important" historic building ...": The castle is a Scheduled Monument, a "nationally important" historic building ... [quote marks around "Scheduled Monument" would also work]
• Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've had a go at rewriting that sentence.
• There was a typo.
• I've removed the sentence about conservation issues as it jars with the previous sentence about the castle being under the care of the City of Rochester without adding much.
• How about this?
• ...and this?
• Changed. Nev1 (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Correction from article talk page

Just a quick note ... I hate to leave something wrong on the FAC page but it's archived now. It was pointed out on the article talk page that it's "accommodation", not "accommodations", in BritEng. - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)