Talk:Penhallam/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 01:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I will review, comments to follow over next few days. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead
 * "robbed for its stone": not crazy about "robbed" for an inanimate object, how about scavenged or stripped?

11th century
 * "either by a one Tryold": not sure if the "one" should be there.

12th-13th centuries
 * link Robert fitz William, Robert de Cardinham if possible. And is it William or Turold? If William, then it seems to come out of the blue.

14th-21st centuries
 * "The walls were robbed": as with the lead, not crazy with "robbed". Stripped may work better.
 * Newly exposed walls? The lead says foundations, and that these were unaltered from the medieval period.

Other stuff
 * The images appear to have appropriate tags
 * No dupe links
 * No DAB links
 * External links check OK

That's it for me, will check back in a few days for progress. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review, Zawed.
 * "Robbed" is the standard verb for removing stones out of walls (also known as "stone robbing").
 * "one Tyrold" - we don't have his other names, so I'm struggling to find a way of phrasing this without falling back on the "a one" phrase (which is certainly a method of communicating that). Alternatives welcomed, as it's not my favourite construction!
 * This article has pretty much exhausted the sources on William and Robert, so I doubt that that they're going to have their own articles any time soon... It is William, as surnames didn't really exist in early Anglo-Norman England. Richard Fitz Turold means "Richard, son of Turold", and Robert fitz William similarly means "Robert, son of William" - rather like the Arabic use of "ibn" today. Although once the Cardinhams started calling themselves by that name, these ancestors were were counted as part of the Cardinham family line.
 * I've had a go at rephrasing the exposed wall bit - see if it makes more sense now! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The changes to the article and the feedback on my comments satisfy me that this article is an appropriate standard for GA. I consider it covers the subject to a good standard using reliable sources. It is well written, appropriately illustrated and is stable. Passing now as GA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)