Talk:Portland Castle/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 18:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No DABs
 * External links good.
 * Images appropriately licensed.
 * pillbox, since destroyed demolished is probably a better word than destroyed.
 * Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * HMS Osprey helicopter base until 1999, but with the base's too close repetition; perhaps facility for the second "base"?
 * Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * southern side, mounted by Shouldn't this be surmounted?
 * Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * two-storeys high no hyphen
 * Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm having a hard time reconciling the picture of the keep from the harbour and that of the courtyard view. The courtyard view appears to be taken from a position just south of the gun platform (G) and shows the south-eastern corner housing the kitchen which I was surprised to see is also two storeys high. Its roof and that of the keep are crenellated, were guns ever mounted up there? A plan of the first storey might be in order as well.
 * The keep is certainly two storeys tall, as mentioned in the architecture section. As per the section, the castle had three tiers of guns, two in the front gun room, and another as the third tier in the central tower. I can't find anything saying that the wings of the tower didn't have guns, but there are equally no references to them holding guns. The harbour is slightly higher now than the courtyard, I think, which is perhaps why the two photographs look slightly odd. I didn't find a suitable first floor plan. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The gun battery appears to be right at water level. Is the castle in any danger from further subsidence or erosion?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've found no references to it being subject to further erosion. Along the south coast, a lot depends on the direction of the currents, so you can have buildings close to the water which aren't subject to erosion - but only a bit further along the coast, see really devastating loss of land. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)