Talk:Hull Castle

Hull Castle has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 24, 2016. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hull Castle article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Fortifications / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Hull Castle is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will review. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written as always, a few comments: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16th century

Can Channel be wikilinked?
Duplicate links (linked twice): blockhouse, the Crown
Sir Richard Long and Michael Stanhope No need to call them by their full names, you introduced them in the previous section.

The rest of the article reds quite well. Excellent prose, complying with the MOS. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Channel and dup links fixed. Full names are being used when they appear in a new section.

Um, in most other articles I have seen editors mentioning people only once by their full names (the first mention) and then consistently use their surnames. Moreover, here you mention them in the section immediately after the one where they were first named, so it can look redundant. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it works okay, and it complies with the MOS. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, not a major issue to halt promotion. Good job, promoted. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Author/Editor formatting[edit]

Is there any reason for the different formatting of authors/editors? The References section uses first/last format while the Bibliography section uses last/first formatting. I would have expected both to use the same format. Keith D (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The on-line references are just done in a different sequence I think. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]