Talk:Haapsalu Castle

GA Review
The article is well written from the standpoint of good prose, and seems to cover the description of the castle and its church, as well as their historical significance, quite well. It seems to be well-referenced, and sufficient to meet the Good Article criteria, however, it depends too heavily on very few citations, so more references and information is needed if editors wish to improve this to featured status (though this goes beyond the scope of GA review, obviously).

A couple of changes need to be made prior to GA status:


 * The lead section is too short, and does not provide an adequate summary of the article. Please expand; WP:LEAD may be worth checking out for suggestions here.
 * There are lots of little issues with reference formatting. First, reference citations should contain full citation information, not just links to websites. Include author, title, publication, date of publication, and the date the web link was last retrieved. This is important so that, if the link ever becomes a 404 not found, the reference is not totally useless, and someone interested in verifying the article can track down the information they want and do research.
 * When citations are placed in text, the citation should be placed immediately after the punctuation, not between the sentence and its final punctuation (e.g. like this. ; not like this .). There are several instances in the article of the latter case which should be fixed.
 * The Image:Haapsalu.jpg has a deprecated copyright tag that must be replaced.
 * The 'Legend of the White Lady' section is very short, and could be expanded. It might actually be better to include this not as a separate section, but instead, in the section about the church, or the general history section. Also, please see WP:MSH for section header guidelines (specifically, use of capital letters in headers).

Once these issues are fixed, I think the article could be a GA. I will place it on hold for now while this is addressed. Cheers! Dr. Cash 04:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your good and useful suggestions - I'll try to address these issues within few days. -- Sander Säde  05:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I did the changes, but I am unaware how to continue from here. I left a message to your talk page, which has so far gone unanswered. -- Sander Säde  02:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Article looks good, now. I believe it meets the GA criteria. I made a minor change to further expand the lead, introducing the white lady there and adding some more text. I'm not sure how to expand the lead further, as it does provide a reasonable summary of the article. Cheers! Dr. Cash 05:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Whee! My first GA! -- Sander Säde  05:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bishopric was founded supposedly in 1227 or 1228 by the Bishop of Riga as a catholic bishopric and by Heinrich VII, King of Romans, as a principality of Holy Roman Empire:

Heinrich, Römischer König, belehnt den Bischof Gottfried mit dem neu errichteten Bisthum Oesel, den 1. Octbr. 1228
H(enricus), Dei gratia Romanorum rex semper Augustus, universis imperii fidelibus, tam in Teutonia, quam in Livonia constitutis, gratiam suam et omne bonum. Quum rex regum et dominus dominantium, Deus, caput et principatum omnium regnorum Romanum elegit imperium, de gloria nominis Christiani et amplificatione imperii magnopere credimus esse gaudendum. Eapropter venientem ad nos venerabilem Gotfridum, primum Osiliensem episcopum, et episcopatum suum, cum universo populo suo, nuper baptizato, nobis offerentem, benigne suscepimus, atque ea, quae nostri iuris ratio postulare videbatur, regia eidem porreximus hilaritate; terminos quoque, ad praefatam diocesim pertinentes, videlicet quinque kelichontas in Osilia et septem in Maritima, cum quadam insula deserta, quae dicitur Dageida, et aliis quibusdam insulis adiacentibus, cum omnium iuris et honoris integritate, quam habent alii Livonenses episcopi, sibi suisque successoribus auctoritate regali in perpetuum confirmanes. Datum apud Wilcenburch, kal. Octobris, indictione secunda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.110.66 (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Typo
Thee is clearly a typo, but I'm not sure if it should be the or three.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)