Talk:Muckrach Castle/GA1

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 17:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Happy to review this one. AM

Lead section / infobox

 * Muchrach or Muckerach Castle – Muchrach and Muckerach Castle should also be in bold.
 * Done.
 * Link Highland (Highland (council area)) in both the lead and the infobox.
 * Done.
 * Any reason for the coordinates to be included both inline and at the top of the article?
 * Removed from top of the article.
 * The caption in the infobox, and the description of the type as a castle, are both not needed here.
 * Done. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

16th to 19th century

 * Ian Begg should be introduced in this section, not in the following one.
 * Done.
 * Consider amending in the forest-area, masonry was less well understood or trusted, and to something like ‘in the forest-area masonry was not as well understood or trusted and’.
 * Done.
 * I would leave out all of the daughter of McGregor of Strathavon story, it’s not particularly connected with the topic.
 * Done, though moved the ref to a Further Reading section.
 * Unroofed – was the roof removed, or did it simply lack a roof by this time?
 * I don't know; there's just one line in the book saying it was unroofed in 1739.
 * thought to have been – who thought this?
 * Clarified.
 * By 1876-1878... – this sentence comes from a primary source. As secondary sources are preferable (see WP:RSPRIMARY), is one available?
 * I'm not aware of a secondary source for this statement. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

20th to 21st century

 * led by architect Ian Begg – ‘led by Begg’.
 * Done.
 * a "roofless shell" – appears to have already been stated in the previous section and so need not be repeated here.
 * Removed.
 * Link OS (Ordnance Survey), which should not be abbreviated; corbelling (Corbel)
 * Done.
 * no trace – it should be clearer here about what was not found.
 * Clarified.
 * Why finally?
 * Word removed.
 * This was prompted by an Inverness County Council Planning Officer reminding the owners of their obligations when having a listed building. The owners died before the restoration was completed, but their son took over as the client. - is imo excessive detail, and so is not needed.
 * Second sentance removed.
 * Avoid relatively recently (MOS:RELTIME).
 * Reworded.
 * It was only in the third year into the project that – 'During the third year of the restoration’ sounds better imo.
 * Agreed.
 * is now offered as a – sounds strange, as it contains now (MOS:RELTIME) as well as offers.
 * Reworded.
 * Christmas at the Castle should have the British title, and should be in italics.
 * Done. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Location

 * Convert three miles; also one mile.
 * Done.
 * Link River Dulnain.
 * Done. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Description

 * The image of the castle is redundant (as it looks very like the one in the infobox).
 * Removed.
 * a relatively small structure – is too vague.
 * Clarified a bit.
 * Part of the first paragraph is uncited.
 * Now cited.
 * later – needs clarification.
 * Reworded.
 * first floor – is ambiguous (US and British meanings differ).
 * I'd used British meaning given the article, and I'd hoped the final paragraph talking about ground, first, then second floor made it clear. I'm open to suggestions how to make it more clear though.
 * ✅ The caption accompanying the plan now clarifies the terms. AM


 * Link coat of arms; monogram; conservatory (presumably Sunroom).
 * Done.
 * it shows – what does it refer to here?
 * Clarified as the panel.
 * The image of the plaque is unrelated to the text, unless it has some significance, it should be removed.
 * Included as this is the "ornamented panel" discussed in the text.
 * Understood. AM


 * I have put MacGibbon and Ross’s plan of the castle on WikiCommons here, it may be of use.
 * The illustration of the castle from the same source is now here if you want to include it in the article.
 * Thank you for both of those, I will try to include them. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

On hold
I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 3 March to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this. I'll address the points in the coming days, and will ping you again once I'm done. As a heads-up, I'll be away for a few days from 29 February. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead
All looks fine apart from a couple of points, which I have marked as ❌. Also, the lead is looks on the small side, and could perhaps be doubled in size, so all the sections in the main part of the article are properly represented. Apologies for not spotting that earlier. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I've now addressed all the points, including expanding the lead. I also added a comment in the main text about it's listed building status, which was otherwise only mentioned in the lead and infobox. Thank you again for your time on this. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * All now looks fine, passing now. Congratulations! Amitchell125 (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)