Talk:Castles in Scotland/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Sagaciousphil (talk · contribs) 10:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been looking at this article for a few days - I did correct a couple of minor typos a few days ago but don't think that edit was sufficient to preclude me from undertaking a review; I can see Sabrebd is still doing some very minor tweaking so will delay starting a full review until Monday (11 November) when I can give it my full concentration. I hope that's okay?

At an initial read through, the article looks to be in good shape and I'll look forward to checking it in more depth. SagaciousPhil  -  Chat  10:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Great, that works well for me. I hope to just check it through on Sunday. Thanks for taking this on.--  SabreBD  (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hard work you've put into this (and the other Scottish overview articles you've worked on!); it looks in pretty good shape! I've been through it again and I just have a handful of queries:

Lead
 * "During the Wars of Independence, Robert the Bruce pursued a policy of castle slighting." consider linking slighting as some readers may not be familiar with the term (I had to look it up!).
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Middle ages


 * "Lise Hull has suggested that the creation of castles in Scotland ..." - I suggest indicating why her opinion is considered pertinent; maybe 'historian Lise Hull'?
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Alexander III's early death sparked conflict in Scotland and English intervention under Edward I in 1296, that brought this phase of castle building to an end and began a new phase of siege warfare." Could this sentence be clarified? Is is perhaps the word 'that' which is making it cumbersome?
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * " ... although rarer in England, they rapidly spread across Scotland. Scotland also led the way in adopting the new ..." - Possibly consider re-wording to prevent repeating the word Scotland?
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Renaissance palaces


 * "This was followed by re-buildings at Holyrood, Falkland, Stirling and Edinburgh, described as "some of the finest examples of Renaissance architecture in Britain" - described by whom?
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Much of this work was planned and financed by James Hamilton of Finnart ..." - I had to do a double take with this wording; could you clarify 'much of this work'? Does it mean the whole of Scotland or just the castles/palaces in certain areas (maybe I'm just being a bit dim).
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Decline


 * "Blair Castle was a popular location on account of its landscaped gardens, and Stirling Castle with its romantic historic connections." Could you consider re-jigging slightly as it feels a tad clumsy?
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Twentieth century to the present
 * "Some castles remain in private hands, but most are now owned and maintained by the National Trust for Scotland (founded 1931) and Historic Scotland (created as an agency in 1991). Most of those managed by the National Trust are post-Medieval estate houses that were still in occupation until the twentieth century. Those run by Scottish Heritage include most of the ruined castles and tower houses. Many are open to the public." Scottish Heritage - do you mean Historic Scotland? Also, "most are now owned ..." I'd suggest quoting a figure. Looking at the about.com source, it quotes 129. (personal comment: it probably counts as my own WP:OR but I always had the impression many/most are still privately owned! Crimonmogate, Udny Castle, Cairness House, even Cluny Castle all spring to mind)
 * I have done the correction to the organisation title, but not sure about quoting the figure as that includes more than just castles, but I will see if I can come up with something more directly connected.--  SabreBD  (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see the book ref is fairly vague about this and I suppose it's a figure that will be subject to change over the years, so fair enough.  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  09:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Overall, the article is in good order and I'm probably being picky! SagaciousPhil  -  Chat  11:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making those adjustments so promptly!  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  09:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * * Complies with all these.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * * The reference style is consistent throughout using the editor's preferred format.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * * Remains focussed on it's broad spectrum topic.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * * It is neutral throughout.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * * There is no evidence of continual change.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * * Eight relevant images are used - four have SA-CC-3 licences and the others are CC-SA-2, so all covered by Creative Commons.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * * I have asked to give this a quick skim over when he has the chance before I pass it as I'm not vastly experienced in GA reviews but I don't see any issues with this.   SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  09:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That is fine by me.--  SabreBD  (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Phil, I don't see any serious problems here on a quick skim. I haven't done source checks for main aspects, copyvio, etc. but it superficially seems complete, the prose is good, and Sabrebd's a giant among GA contributors, so I wouldn't anticipate any hidden problems. I'd say it's a pass. Thanks to you both for working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help, - and  for producing such an informative, interesting article; I'll give it a green icon now.   SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  13:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both for a very helpful review.--  SabreBD  (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)