Talk:Edzell Castle/GA1

GA Review: On hold
General GA Criteria:
 * It is well written
 * readable prose, no major spelling and grammar concerns, generally complies with WP:MOS, but a few minor concerns: see notes below


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * Inline citations present, good range of reliable sources used; a few minor citation and bibliographic issues outlined below


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * ✅ appears comprehensive, covering major points of interest related to castle, maintains summary style


 * It is neutral;
 * ✅ Neutral tone maintained throughout


 * It is '''stable
 * ✅ No edit warring, or content dispute; no major rewriting of content


 * It is illustrated, where possible, by images'''
 * ✅ good range of images; tags all checked: all from Commons; images support text and are not mere decoration

other issues: Generally very good, and worthy of GA. However, I can see some areas that could be improved or worked on. GA is not dependent on all these being met, but you might like to consider them.
 * Not many incoming links from mainspace; you might like to provide some links from other related articles
 * I did try to put in some, will have another look.
 * Location map is in the history section, which seems a little awkward; did you try it in the infobox?
 * I agree its awkward, but it does look rubbish in the infobox.
 * In-line referencing style differs throughout: some have author, some include book title (even when listed in bibliography), some include date. Suggest you standardise these.
 * I've taken out the titles where they are given in the bibliogrpahy. I deliberately added the date to the two works by Simpson, for additional clarity.
 * It would be good to have ISBNs for Glendinning, Lindsay and MacGibbon
 * added these.
 * Lead: "it was begun": what was? Scotland? The building began? Began to be ruined? The garden? – I know what you mean, but I shouldn't have to stop and think. "more of a country house" ?  Because of use or construction?  Military construction techniques but no wars came this way?  Or built to look like a fortification, but actually wouldn't have stood up to it? Clarification woudl be good, but if you want to keep it general here, then "Predominately used as a country house" might cover it.
 * Reworded to clarify
 * Following on: in the main body you describe gunloops: prettifications or defensive? Width of walls.. defensive or country house?  Doesn't sound cannon-proof to me. Can we have an analysis of this?
 * Well it certainly wasn't cannon-proof, but it was probably "defendable", as opposed to defensive. I will have a look at what Charles McKean says...
 * Was Sir David Lindsay (9th earl's son) the 10th earl? When did he become Lord Edzell? Were the lords Edzell now a different branch to the Crawford earls? It would be nice to have this clarified.
 * Ugh, was hoping to sidestep this particular piece of tortuous family history! However, I think I've made it all fit. He became Lord Edzell in 1593 (that was already in), this was a judicial title not a hereditary peerage.
 * What is Category A? I know this, but not all readers will. Would be helpful to have a cite for the scheduling (I've tagged).
 * notes added for SAM, listed building and Inventory of HGDL added.
 * Presumably the lists of the virtues and dieties are those depicted in the panels? Can this be made clearer for dull readers like me?
 * Hopefully this is now clearer.
 * Interpretations: "The art of memory had become a feature of Scottish culture, from the court of Queen Anne, Danish consort of James VI, to the lodges of operative stonemasons." what? Not clear, I'm afraid.
 * Final paragraph: direct quote not cited. It must have a ref here, even if it shares it with the following sentence.
 * added.
 * The lead mentioned links with hermeticism, but this is not explained later.
 * swapped for the more general "esoteric".
 * Rosicrucians and freemasons are discussed within the same conclusions, but I don't see how they relate to each other: I should be able to understand the relationship without having to click the blue links.

Don't be dismayed by the long list! I do think this is a good article. I've spent quite a bit of time going through it, so don't think I'm just being niggly, just seeking to strengthen the article. Some points I raise are stylistic, and are desirable rather than essential, but some (like the citations) are vital. i'm happy to discuss any of these things with you. Gwinva (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the comments now addressed, as noted above. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been through it again: it looks good. I've reordered the final section, to bring the Rosicrucian discussions together: the freemasonry comment broke it up.  But, I am left wondering: 1. what do the freemasons use the site for?  And by saying "still", does that mean they also used it in the past?  I think this article is GA-standard (it is very good) but I will hold off until Harrypotter has made his promised contribs. Gwinva (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've not been able to find much connecting the masons with Edzell in the present day. There is a lodge called Edzell Castle (No.870), but this page suggests they meet in Edzell rather than at the castle. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd be inclined to remove the "freemasons use it" sentence: it seems to raise more questions than it answers. I mean, do they just come once a year, have a look around then a cup of tea in the cafe?  Break in in the dead of night for a secret ceremony?  Is it notable?   Anyway, I just waiting for word from you: are you happy with the article, or do you think Harrypotter would add valuable material?  Everything else seems nice and tidy, but I don't want to jump the gun and list this version if there's something just about to go in.  Gwinva (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think its up to scratch then go ahead and list it - additions can still be made. I've commented out the masonic statement until it can be worked into the article properly. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Listed. Well done! I enjoyed reviewing it, and Look forward to seeing it at FAC sometime?!  Anyway, things to work on in the future include the freemasonry links, and analysis of defence structure (etc).  Gwinva (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)