Talk:Longtown Castle/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 18:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * 2) *History: "parts of whose earthworks have angular, Roman-like features." -- What about the architecture is Roman? This should be described.
 * Done.Hchc2009 (talk)


 * 1) *"Hugh had acquired the acquired the local lands around Ewias Lacey" -- I can't tell if this is a typo or if something else was intended.
 * Done.Hchc2009 (talk)


 * 1) *"More defensible sites existed nearby, but this location was strategically well located." -- Which sites are nearby? And who's calling this site 'well-located' and why?
 * Done. The historical consensus is that its well-located, so I've explained why. Hchc2009 (talk)


 * 1) *"... and seems to have been fitted with a portcullis, while a 3 metres (9.8 ft) thick wall encircled..." -- In this and other pages, I believe you can add an "adj=on" parameter to the convert template so the measurement still makes sense in context.
 * Done. I keep forgetting about these! Hchc2009 (talk)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * All of the references appear to be working. [No problems]
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * 2) *Any idea how many people could be quartered in the castle? At one point you note it was manned by 30 men but it isn't clear from any of the materials how large it actually is.
 * To be honest, no. You could have theoretically got a lot of troops in a bailey that size, but not for very long. Castle baileys are typically understudied/excavated in England, so we lack decent information across the discipline. There's nothing in the sources for Longtown, unfortunately, beyond that mentioned in the text. It would be OR, but I couldn't see a force of more than 50-100 staying in Longtown for any length of time. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) *20th - 21st centuries section: Maybe you should describe which parts of the castle survive to today? The prose and photos note that it deteriorated substantially, which parts still stand? It's not clear in the text.
 * Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * [No problems]
 * 1) It is stable:
 * [No problems]
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * 2) *Four images, all with appropriate licensing and formatting. But what year were the two photos taken? Should be clarified in the captions.
 * Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Other:
 * Duplicate link tool shows no problems. Disambiguation link tool shows no problems. External link tool shows no problems. Placing the article on hold pending a few improvements. — Ed! (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Great work. I'm satisfied with the changes made, so I'm passing the GAN now. — Ed! (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)