User talk:Hchc2009/Archive 13

Magna Carta
Hi, on Talk:Magna Carta you suggested waiting for the latest version of Carpenter's book and a few other changes before going for an FA nomination. I wondered if you had managed to get hold of a copy yet? I'm sort of getting worried about whether we can get it through FAC to be ready for the front page on 15 June - what do you think?&mdash; Rod talk 16:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for continued work on this & Talk:Dunster Butter Cross/GA1 - I'm leaving in approx 30 mins for my eldest daughters wedding tomorrow & then fly to Portugal for a week, so will catch up with everything as soon as I can on my return.&mdash; Rod talk 08:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Simon de Montfort's Parliament
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Online access to archives
Punch and many others: the Wellcome Library near Euston offers free membership, which gives remote access to some wonderful archives. You have to apply in person, passport and utility bill in hand, but once that's done it's a wonderful resource, and membership lasts for five years.  Tim riley  talk    10:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of medieval and early modern gunpowder artillery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Dunster Butter Cross/GA1
Thanks for your review at Talk:Dunster Butter Cross/GA1. I'm now back and happy to look at anything further. I believe I've addressed most of your comments apart from the comment re "Buttercrosses were common in English market towns..." I can't see it in the sources either but it uses the text at Buttercross & I'm surprised its controversial.&mdash; Rod talk 17:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review which has definitely helped to improve the article. I was a little surprised you put it under "Architecture – Religious" as I'm not aware of the religious significance.&mdash; Rod talk 08:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I figured since it was a Christian cross, it could belong there. If you think there's a better category for it though, please do move it - I won't be offended! Hchc2009 (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Castell Coch/archive1
Nommed. Can you or KJP1 kindly alert the peer reviewers, I don't want to pester them again seems as I had to abandon the Irataba nom earlier!♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Camber Castle
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Camber Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Big Inch
The article Big Inch you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Big Inch for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Congratulations indeed, and many thanks. I hope you don't mind but I've nicked your "chill" footnote for The Tower House.  It's due for the front page in May and I think, unexplained, death by chill may provoke some comment. All the best.  KJP1 (talk) 05:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, it's what the wiki is there for! Ironically, after ages trying to find a decent reference, I then opened my literary newspaper yesterday to find a review of "A Short History of Fever"... sigh... ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Isabella of France
Hi!

To quote you "As per previous, no evidence of secondary discussion in the literature"

I don't quite get it, what evidence exactly do you need if there were already clearly stated:


 * the titles of the books;
 * the authors;
 * the years of the books;
 * their ISBNs.

If you doubt those books exist you can google them, by using the title-author-ISBN option or look at amazon.co.uk. They are all there-new or used.

Could you explain? Cause the article looks major weird without a single mention of any historical fiction novel on Isabella or without mention that some of those fiction novels were even made into TV series. I mean, just compare it with wiki page on Anne Boleyn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyWicked (talk • contribs) 18:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course. There are a couple of policies and guidelines that apply here. The main one is that articles should be based on reliable sources, secondary sources whenever possible, e.g. a review article, monograph, or textbook. We should also be ensuring that an article is balanced by what reliable secondary sources say about a subject; for example, if biographers spend ages talking about a subject's role in a Shakespeare play, then so should our article - equally, if biographers rarely mention that the subject was in a play at all, then our article shouldn't make a big deal of it. Just because a fact exists, doesn't necessarily mean that it belongs in an article.
 * In practice, what that means is that when we're writing about a historical person and considering, for example, fiction, we should first be asking "what do reliable secondary sources say about the person and historical fiction?" Take Richard I, for example; there are a lot of articles and books about his role in fiction - there are even analyses of his portrayal in cartoons etc.! In the case of Isabella, there isn't as much prominence in her biographies, although Weir, for example, does mention it (and is cited in the article accordingly). The second question to then ask, "can I find a secondary source that mentions the subject/person, discusses their role in a particular novel/play/film etc., and which tells us something about the subject/person themselves?"
 * To take an example, we could look at the novel La Louve de France; has any critic, or academic, or biographer etc. written about Isabella in a reliable, secondary source and made reference to La Louve? (e.g. "our modern perceptions of Isabella are influenced by her portrayal in La Louve...") If yes, then great: you've potentially got something relevant to add to an article on Isabella; if the only mention is on an Amazon advertising page for La Louve, or the book itself (a primary source), then we don't have a reliable secondary source to cite, we don't have anything to actually say about Isabella, and its undue weight to add it in as a stray fact; it's then trivia. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok,thanks, still confused. So you are saying that the articles should be based on secondary sources whenever possible, e.g. a review article, monograph, or  textbook. Great. So whose reviews can qualify according to your opinion, for example - only expert's reviews or any common reader's who read a book and described in his/her review what this book was about? Are common reader's reviews on historical fiction novels reliabe sources for listing these particular historical fiction books in the wikipedia article on that particular person? The key word here is "listing" cause by giving a list of historical fiction novels on Isabella in wiki article on her you are merely giving examples of how many times and where she was portraited in fiction. Then you say "what do reliable secondary sources say about the person and historical fiction?" Sorry, do you mean that until someone like Alison Weir reads some historical fiction novel on Isabella and puts her stamp of approval on it in her own non-fiction books, you should ignore that this  historicl fiction novel  exists at all and it can't be mentioned in wikipedia? I'm sorry, but that's sounds really twisted. As I understand you are not trying to use "all fiction must be 100% correct in presenting real history to be listed in wikipedia" line, cause Mel Gibson's film Braveheart is listed in the article. And Shakespeare is still listed on the page of  Richard III, for example, though those now famous bones proved that  he wasn't a hunchback and didn't have a limp and a withered arm. I bet Richardians don't like good old Willy's version, but they don't remove him from the page. You also gave an exampe of Richard I- well, there is a section "Modern fiction" on his wiki page with quite a list of fictional novels there (he even has extra artice on his cultural depictions). The same is with Elizabeth I of England, for example. And I can bet that academics and biographers haven't read all those fictional novels-still they are listed in wikipedia. And that makes artices on them even more useful. Why? Because those people who want to read historical fiction on those historical figures don't have to waste lots of their own time and try to find what historical fiction novels there are on this subject,as somebody already helped them and did it for them. Isabella is less popular in fiction than Richard I and Elizabeth I - but that's exactly why you should have "Modern fiction" section on her in wikipedia, not pretend there is none.

Speaking of Alison Weir, btw, she does mention Maurice Druon's novel "The She-Wolf of France", for example", in her non-fiction book "Isabella: She-Wolf of France, Queen of England" (Random House, 2011, page 2) and uses it as example of how "the legend[of her as She-Wolf] has become deeply entrenched in the popular consciousness". Yet, Druon's novel is not listed in the section on fictional portraits of Isabella on wiki-neither is listed the fact that Druon's novels were made into TV series (twice) and two different actresses played Isabella there. Well, I listed these facts, but you removed them. Wink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyWicked (talk • contribs) 09:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Best practice is to use secondary sources (not reviews of the fiction books/films, but other secondary sources) that mention how the fictional work shows/impacts on the actual historical personage/event. The article is about the historical person ... so anything in the article needs to be discussed in secondary sources which mainly discuss the subject of the article, not the fictional work. And you need to remember that these are encyclopedia articles - they are summarizing and simplifiying. Just because Weir mentions something in a couple of hundred page book doesn't mean that it needs to be in an article on wikipedia. And no, this doesn't mean that books can't be mentioned in wikipedia. If they are notable enough for their own article, or if their author is notable, they certainy can be discussed on the author or book's own page. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sally, have a look at WP:RELIABLE; the guidance is that we should be looking for "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors"; we also shouldn't be using self-published sources, for example blogs etc. A random individual commenting on an historical person and their role in historical literature isn't likely to meet these criteria. If a fact about a subject is significant, it's a safe bet that a reliable source somewhere will have discussed it - and if not, it probably isn't significant. I'd agree with Ealdgyth's advice - do some research to identify a reliable secondary source that discusses the subject (e.g. Isabella, Richard I) and which talks about the fictional work (e.g. Shakespeare, Duron etc.) and its relationship to them, then use that information as the basis for adding material to an article, while making sure that the source explicitly backs up what you're writing about the subject and that you're adding significant encyclopaedic information about the subject. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Big Inch
 Acroterion   (talk)   10:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Credit for improvement should go to you, not me: I started the article years ago, but did not do the work to make it a GA.  Acroterion   (talk)   10:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's very thoughtful (and thanks!) - but it was definitely a team effort! Cheers, Hchc2009 (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Vikings
An editor is trawling articles changing Vikings to Norsemen, although Johnbod has pointed out that Viking is used by WP:RS sources at Talk:Vikings and I have at Talk:Battle of the Conwy. I have reverted a few on my watch list but no doubt there are many more. Maybe needs referring to an administrator? What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think an uninvolved admin warning might be useful; the editor seems to be acting in good faith, but he seems unwilling to gain broader consensus first and his campaign of changes is proving quite disruptive. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you know how to ask an admin to look at it? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I got a few other changes - it's a commonly used scholarly term - and happens to be more useful when they were actually "in viking" ... Ealdgyth - Talk 11:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing ANI would be the place to go, but I've only ever done it for edit-warring etc. in the past. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Competence issues also - not checking his edits - here he changes the "viking" to "norsemen" in a citation for the title of a published work. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They are appalling & almost all need reverting - "Norsemen" used as an adjective, "norsemens" etc (AWB of course). He's had loads of warning. There are too many edits to correct manually. We need a block and an auto-revert. And quickly. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I've raised something at ANI, requesting some help in resolving this one. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Camber Castle
The article Camber Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Camber Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops!
Hi, sorry to bother you, and I hope you're well but – I just noticed a glaring error in that amazing groundplan you worked up for St Mary's Church, Reculver, which is obviously my fault! It's so obvious that I struggle to understand how I didn't spot it before... Looking at the yellow part of the plan, the colouring in the bottom-right corner should be the same as in the top-right, so there's a sort of reverse "L"-shaped part of the plan, with one buttress extending southwards, that's currently yellow but should be purple, if you follow me. Any chance of fixing it? I can only hope that you're not angry, just very disappointed! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, should be able to do that - probably Friday morning if that's okay! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That's more than ok, thank you! [tugs forelock] Nortonius (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, just to let you know that you can forget about this [points to ground plan]! Eric Corbett very kindly took on a GA review of the article and stepped up to tweak the image – for which I remain hugely grateful! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Holnicote Estate
I see you have kindly taken on the GA review of Holnicote Estate. Following a talk page message a few days ago about this article I have started making some changes in my sandbox, but wanted to consult another editor (who did much of the family tree bits before moving it into article space.&mdash; Rod talk 07:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Various edits have been carried out to this article and I'd welcome any comments you have about further improvements.&mdash; Rod talk 15:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem; I've done a review - the article is looking a lot better than it did, and I've highlighted some further bits and pieces as part of the GA review. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per your suggestion re Early History section, I did some tweaks on this over the weekend. When you get a minute could you take another look and see if that is any better?&mdash; Rod talk
 * Will do. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Review
Hey man. it's almost a month now. Are you still going to review the article? Is there anything else I should do? I really need your response. Godzilladude123 (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay! Final tweaks made, and it's passed. Nice work! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Milton Blockhouse
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Milton Blockhouse you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gravesend Blockhouse
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gravesend Blockhouse you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gravesend Blockhouse
The article Gravesend Blockhouse you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gravesend Blockhouse for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , I just wanted to touch base and remind you that the GAR for Gravesend Blockhouse is on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks again for all your tremendous work on this article. -- West Virginian   (talk)  00:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Milton Blockhouse
The article Milton Blockhouse you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Milton Blockhouse for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gravesend Blockhouse
The article Gravesend Blockhouse you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gravesend Blockhouse for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St Catherine's Castle
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article St Catherine's Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St Catherine's Castle
The article St Catherine's Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:St Catherine's Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Portland articles
Hi Hchc2009,

I understand there has been some concern over the close paraphrasing on some of the Portland articles I've been working on over the last couple of years. Needless to say this is a error on my part, of which I won't deny, and of course it needs to be remedied immediately. I am keen to solve the issues, and over the last week or so I have made a start on condensing some material down where necessary. I feel that the articles I've worked on provide enough detail and coverage on the relevant subject, using an array of different sources, and are now simply in need of a proper rewrite. Please do trim back any articles in the mean time, where necessary, such as you have done on East Weare Battery. Over the coming months I will take the existing material and give it a proper overhaul in regards to writing it in independent words. I hope this sounds like a reasonable proposal to you. It would be a shame to lose all the hard work and dedication to these pages altogether.

Kind regards, Ajsmith141 (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi! I was going to leave you a message later, so thanks for getting there ahead of me! As you say, I'd become concerned that the close paraphrasing / cut and pasting was a bit widespread; we all make mistakes with this from time to time, but in some of the articles it had been really extensive. That said, the errors were clearly made in good faith and I wouldn't want you to be put off your editing on Portland! Stay in touch, and if you want a second opinion or similar at any point, just say: happy to help out if I can. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hchc2009 for the speedy response. I thought I would message to let you know my position and determination to sort the articles out. My mistake was in trying to tackle so many different Portland-related articles at once, and rushing them as a result! I'm sure you've noticed there are quite a number of articles on Portland, so it may take some time but I'll keep at it until they are all reworded to an acceptable standard. Thanks for the offer of supplying a second opinion - I'll finish condensing the rest of the articles I planned to, and then once I start rewording I'll let you know. Thanks again. Ajsmith141 (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Hchc2009, I've been thinking about the best way to approach the Portland articles, and as time has become very limited for me recently, I wonder if it might be an idea to perhaps redirect some pages on lesser features on Portland, and cut others for the time being (or revert back to a previous state)? That way there won't be any current paraphrasing issues, and the articles can then be worked on properly in the future without any immediate panic to remedy them. Please let me know what you think on this thought. Thanks again. Ajsmith141 (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Magna carta references
Hello Hchc2009, I added 3 NY Times references in the Magna Carta article, for the purpose of providing more outside information to readers.

You deleted them as not needed.

What is the method to add the NY Times articles to the Magna Carta Article?

Usually editors advise to add multiple references to text, for the purpose of giving readers additional info if they reader wishes to read more in depth. Thank you, --Jcardazzi (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi


 * Hi! A given fact in an article typically only needs to be referenced once from a high quality, reliable source. In these cases, the information in this part of the article has already been adequately referenced: the article doesn't actually need the additional references. Indeed, there are some good reasons not to add redundant references in; Citation overkill gives some helpful examples of why this can be problematic. If you think that the NY Times citation is needed, my advice would be to start a new discussion on the article talk page, explaining why you think it is needed to support the claim being made in the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Alatskivi Castle
Is there any problem or any issue which needs to be addressed by me in completing your GA review of this article? Thanks.-- Nvvchar . 01:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There should be a list on the GA review page, Hchc2009 (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Cadbury Castle, Somerset and missing page numbers
Hi, I've just started doing some expansion on Cadbury Castle, Somerset and noticed quite a few of the book sources are lacking page numbers. Do you have any of: If so could you look up the relevant page numbers? Obviously any other ideas or edits for improvement would be great as I'd like to take this one to GAN sometime.&mdash; Rod talk 13:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No luck on those I'm afraid - slightly too early a site for my collection! Nev1 might be a good alternative... Hchc2009 (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll give Nev1 a try.&mdash; Rod talk 15:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Your GA nomination of Sandown Castle, Kent
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sandown Castle, Kent you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Hampshire!
Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Hampshire! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 2,690 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in Hampshire.
 * Browse the new WikiProject page
 * Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

GT and FT candidates
Thanks for your contribution at Featured topic candidates/English Heritage properties in Somerset/archive1 which has now been promoted as a good topic. Would you be kind enough to take a look at Featured topic candidates/Scheduled monuments in Somerset/archive1 which is currently nominated for featured topic?&mdash; Rod talk 07:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yarmouth Castle
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yarmouth Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Biblioworm -- Biblioworm (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sieges of Taunton
After your Good article review, I've listed this at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sieges of Taunton for an A-class review, hopefully ahead of a FA nomination. If you had any more critical comments, then your further input would be more than welcome. Thanks for the GA review, and for any potential future comments. Harrias talk 17:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look - cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edit of Edward I of England
I am undoing your undo in order to add references. Thanks for the heads-up. June w (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sandown Castle, Kent
The article Sandown Castle, Kent you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sandown Castle, Kent for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sandown Castle, Isle of Wight
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sandown Castle, Isle of Wight you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sandown Castle, Isle of Wight
The article Sandown Castle, Isle of Wight you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sandown Castle, Isle of Wight for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cowes Castle
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cowes Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Sant Esteve d'en Bas GA review
Hello, Hchc2009. Thanks for your review. I've checked your remarks and made changes in accordance. How goes it? Regards, Weymar Horren (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay - should be all done now. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/August 5, 2015‎‎
Hi Hchc, how's it going? A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. User:Biblioworm‎‎ wrote this one (as part of a new outreach program to GAN). It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thanks Dank. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cowes Castle
The article Cowes Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cowes Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

TFAR
Today's featured article/requests/Castell Coch --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * They're coming fast and thick! This one has been scheduled for Today's featured article/August 13, 2015. Checking quickly, I don't see that the first quote in the TFA came from somewhere in the text below the lead, could you check to see if we can keep it? The second quote doesn't appear in the text either. It's sourced to the book, which I don't have. Would this be accurate? "The historian David McLees places Castell Coch's external features and the High Victorian interiors among 'the greatest Victorian triumphs of architectural composition'." - Dank (push to talk) 00:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind on the first quote ... two quotes in a TFA is at least one too many. - Dank (push to talk) 11:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem! The quote came from one of my coauthors (i.e. I can't vouch for it personally), but I know McLees as an author generally, and I think I've seen the same phrase by him cited by other authors, so I've no concerns about it not being accurate. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall that any of my TFAs so far have had quotes. After giving it some thought, I'd prefer not to use quotes if I don't have to because of the inherent ambiguity. Is there an accurate way to reword "Victorian ... architectural composition"? - Dank (push to talk) 17:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Castell Coch is considered to be one of the best surviving examples of Victorian architecture."? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfect. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for Henry I today, again fast ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brownsea Castle
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Brownsea Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't forget about this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Modern equivalents for 14th century financial sums are not considered accurate by historians
Hiya Hchc2009, I Note your comment Here. Checking the Inflation template it is referenced to indices produced by Gregory Clark (economist) via the http://measuringworth.com/aboutus.php website which would seem to have the support of some pretty heavy weight economic historians. How have you formed the view you expressed when reverting? MyTuppence (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi! I know the site well, and it has some good essays explaining the problems in comparing costs over extended time period; the poor monetary penetration of the medieval economy makes comparisons doubly hard, though - money itself forms a sort of commodity in the period.
 * In particular, the wiki template you proposed using uses what is called the CPI; as the template notes, this "is only capable of inflating Consumer Price Index values: staples, workers' rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets). This template is incapable of inflating capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich. Incorrect use of this template would constitute original research." The item it is being applied to, however, is a sum of money spent on non-CPI basket items, that were not covered by Clark's index, which looked at average workers/peasants in the 14th century: the expenditure for Edward's confinement is unsurprisingly that of a very wealthy household, including the purchase of "wine, wax, spices, eggs, cheese, capons, cattle" etc., and isn't appropriate for comparison with the CPI. As Measuring Worth points out, there are alternative measures, but they produce results for £5 being worth anything between spreading from £4K to around £1.6m odd, and the consensus from previous Featured Article reviews has been that they aren't necessarily helpful to the typical reader.
 * For more on money in the English economy of the period, I'd strongly recommend "Dyer, Christopher. (2009) Making a Living in the Middle Ages: The People of Britain, 850 – 1520. London: Yale University Press.", which is impeccably researched but a really readable book on the topic. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Sieges of Taunton/archive1
Me again! Following both the Good article review, and the A-class review, I've now listed Sieges of Taunton at Featured article candidates/Sieges of Taunton/archive1 as a Featured article candidate. If you had any more critical comments, then your further input would be more than welcome. Harrias talk 14:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St Andrew's Castle, Hamble, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walmer Castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brownsea Castle
The article Brownsea Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Brownsea Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

John J. Robinson
Your "failed verification" is because you are attempting to find references to Publisher's Weekly in a Kirkus review. The citation after the Kirkus review is for the Kirkus review, so I fail to see the problem. The entire few sentences actually refers back to "Robinson says in the preface...." The entire rest of the material in that paragraph up to "Kirkus Review" is directly from that preface, and that is cited. I changed it because the last person that tagged it apparently didn't find the Kirkus claim to be legit without a link to the Kirkus review. So how readable is it going to be with a citation every six words as apparently required? MSJapan (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi! The sentence in question is "There was, however, great demand from libraries, which in turn led to positive reviews in Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews." This needs citation(s) from reliable sources to cover: a) there was great demand from libraries; b) that there were positive reviews in Publishers' Weekly; and c) that there were positive reviews in Kirkus. At the moment the only citation after this sentence is from Kirkus, which supports the statement that there were positive reviews on that website, but says nothing about the other claims, which need citations. If the reliable source for the "great demand" and positive reviews in Publisher's Weekly is Robinson himself in his preface, then that needs to be added as a citation, but since he's clearly not a disinterested source (!), the text would need to make clear that this is the author himself making the claims, not a neutral 3rd party. Happy to chat further on the article talk page itself. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St Andrew's Castle, Hamble
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article St Andrew's Castle, Hamble you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St Andrew's Castle, Hamble
The article St Andrew's Castle, Hamble you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:St Andrew's Castle, Hamble for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Cadbury Castle, Somerset
I responded to some of your comments at Talk:Cadbury Castle, Somerset a few days ago (sorry for how long this is taking) but I'm unclear what else you are asking for, specifically: Which I think are the outstanding issues (if there are others let me know). Can you give me a little more guidance?&mdash; Rod talk 21:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't work out from the narrative what was happening in the early Bronze Age (Cadbury 3, I think, in phase terms)
 * Some of the sources (e.g. the Listing) talk about addition fortification work (rebuilding the rampart several times) in 400-200 BC, which isn't mentioned at the moment (unless I've missed it)
 * I was wondering whether you had a chance to look at the latest amendments I made following your comments on this? Unfortunately I've still not heard back from VCH re the date/copyright status of the map - would it be best if I just remove it from the article?&mdash; Rod talk 08:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St Mawes Castle
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article St Mawes Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Walmer Castle
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Walmer Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Netley Castle
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Netley Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of W. L. Warren's argument
Hello,

Everything I presented was thoroughly researched in W. L. Warren's book King John. Nothing is incorrect. I personally enjoy the religious lives of the English monarchs and have taken my time researching John and others. I don't understand why you would need to be convinced about the level of detail, especially due to the fact that I believe I only provided 4-5 sentences (that nevertheless took me two and a half hours to create; making sure I got everything correct). All that is presented is true. The argument that Warren presents is the argument that I posted. It seems that I have provided a more balanced argument allowing Warren's argument to counter Frank McLynn's argument respectfully. I ask you to help me in solving our dispute, but for the time being, I see no reason to delete something that, in the end, is helpful to those who want to hear various arguments and historical findings from other historians.

Marye the quene (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Marye, I've taken across to the relevant talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Walmer Castle
The article Walmer Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Walmer Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Netley Castle
The article Netley Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Netley Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Dunster Yarn Market...
Thanks I'll take a look. I don't know if you spotted it is one (of 38) in a recent good topic nomination see Featured topic candidates/National Trust properties in Somerset/archive1.&mdash; Rod talk 16:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Will drop by and review. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. I'm not sure it's in the right section though, as its being put forward as a featured topic rather than a good topic... Hchc2009 (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Cardiff Castle
A few days? This final game of the 2015 Rugby World Cup is on 31 October 2015? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Across almost a thousand years of history at the castle, it does feel like we should be counting it in days! But I may be biased - I like playing rugby, but I'm not a fan of watching it! Hchc2009 (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously biased, haha. A great shame. I think just a photo would be sufficient and better, but a free one has yet to arrive. I just thought this was unique. It's significance will obviously depend on how far Wales progress. I won't revert. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of O'Brien Brewing and Malting Company
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article O'Brien Brewing and Malting Company you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Edwininlondon -- Edwininlondon (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Heh...
"All other European monarchies (without going as far as the Bulgarians etc) were pretty tiny." Oh, ouch. Let's not even start down the road of Bulgarian editors again... (whimpers) ...Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No! Definitely let's not go down that particular road. We could do with more Bulgarian editors in general though. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

House of Plantagenet
I went ahead and got Jones' book ordered through ILL, and while I was at it, ordered Seward's book on the same subject. Not sure how long or if they'll come in, but both books were held by a number of libraries in my library consortium, which usually means I have better luck getting a hold of a copy. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I've read other material by Jones, but not this one. He presents a decent TV programme though! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it yesterday. Definitely a not great source. No footnotes. Has bits in it that are clearly more novelistic than actual history. From page 132 (revised edition), discussing Hubert Walter and William Marshall discussing who should succeed Richard after Richard died, : ""Come now," said Walter as Marshal approached. "Give me your news!" But his face must have betrayed extreme misgiving." That's not history, that's editorializing. Urf. Going to have to go through page by page. (I got Desmond Seward's book on the Plantagenets also from ILL). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah. "Sounds like a problem," commented Hchc2009, reading down the page. But his typing paused, like the voice of Hubert Walter, his distant 13th century ancestor, concerned about what might come next. "This might mean that a better source is necessary," he concluded, "possibly one of the those suggested by Ealdgyth." Bartlett's England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings would probably work well for this article. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, that latest addition to the FAC page should make it clear... I hope. Now I'm going to go hide in horse research for a while... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of O'Brien Brewing and Malting Company
The article O'Brien Brewing and Malting Company you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:O'Brien Brewing and Malting Company for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Edwininlondon -- Edwininlondon (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

July to September 2015 Reviewing Award

 * Thanks Peacemaker! Hchc2009 (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

St Denys' Church, Sleaford (FAC)
Hello. You may recall that you began reviewing this article at FAC last week. I believe I have now addressed all of your comments—if you're not too busy, would you be able to take a look and let me know what you think? Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC).

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section
I invite you to the latest discussion about ledes in general. --George Ho (talk) 06:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Calshot Castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Curtain wall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Use of 'previous Denomination : Roman Catholic'
Hi, essentially speaking, you have forcefully asserted your opinion that the very reason these buildings were created (ie as living monuments to the power of the Catholic Church in Rome!) should not be included in the basic information box about Lincoln Cathedral. How very very dare you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.179.209 (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be editing while not signed in... Hchc2009 (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St Mawes Castle
The article St Mawes Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:St Mawes Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Portland Castle
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Portland Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Calshot Castle
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Calshot Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. As you've probably noticed, I've seen if I can help out with this review as Eric has taken a leave of absence. I think formally he should have the final say on whether it meets the criteria, so I'll see if I can get hold of him to do that as and when we think we're done. Hope that's okay - it's not really fair to have a GA review torpedoed for unrelated reasons. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry VI of England, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William de la Pole and Richard Neville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Portland Castle
The article Portland Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Portland Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Calshot Castle
The article Calshot Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Calshot Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Review of Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman
Would you be able to do a thorough review of the article Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman for me especially for grammatical and MOS issues? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've left some initial comments. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you help me/point me in the right direction for this? You said, "Find a Grave is generally not considered a reliable source." I know that but the inscription on his family grave marker is found virtually nowhere else besides the Find a Grave link, Flickr and the grave marker itself. None of those are reliable sources, correct? How can I keep the information and follow rules of reliable sourcing at the same time?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that was, actually! I think that Find a Grave is not normally considered reliable, though, because it is user edited (like the wiki). I would have thought that a photograph of his grave marker would be a reliable source for the text that is actually written on it, although whether you can read the writing sufficiently clearly might be an issue, depending on the resolution. You'd have to be clear that you were saying that the information was on his grave marker, though, as opposed to necessarily being verified and true (e.g. we can verify that the marker says he died in Camp Parole, because there's a photograph of it which shows that text on it; that doesn't necessarily mean we have a reliable source that he did die in Camp Parole, etc.) Beyond that, I'm not sure. It might be worth trying a Hawaiian ancestry forum, perhaps, as there may be other records published by the state or Federal agencies etc. - being a Brit, I don't quite know how it works out there! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Right - you can use the marker itself as a primary source. Vital stats records (if they exist) could also be used as primary sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How do I cite the marker (it's the one of the image before the legacy section) as a primary source with my current citation format as oppose to using the Find A Grave site? I don't think I've cite a non-book/non-web source before. And yes I am really careful how I use it in the article already and only use it to cite what the marker says rather than that it is true.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no cite gravestone; you can either write the citation by hand (matching the format of existing citations as much as is possible) or try to adapt one of the existing citation templates. The minimum information to include in a gravestone citation is location (cemetery name and city/state) and the name on the stone. One easy way to do that would be, although ideally there would be no quotation marks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Note...
Also ... and I left at note at Bishonen's talk page - I'm totally at a loss about 3RR being a "process"... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, yes, the idea that 3RR is a suitable process to enact is, um, questionable... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yarmouth Castle
The article Yarmouth Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yarmouth Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Biblioworm -- Biblioworm (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Tintern Abbey
I haven't addressed your annotations to the "Poetry and Paintings" sections before since I decided to go to Tintern myself and check on the views before addressing the industrial archaeology that impinges on the building's depiction. A very stimulating trip it was too.

I'm afraid I found some of your cn additions unhelpful, especially in the paragraphs dealing with the poetry. Much said there is in the article on Wordsworth's poem, to which there is a link, and there is a reference to the Wordsworth text for the description of what it is about. I have, however, altered the wording to something nearer the neutral encyclopaedic tone suggested by the guidelines.

You also questioned the reference I found for the Turner colour study and suggested it might be original research without a definite mention of the work itself. In fact the work may only ever have been a study according to the catalogue reference to it, but it is placed by the catalogue as among the category of works described by the I reference supplied. I have now added the catalogue reference too and that ought to clinch the matter.

The long discussion of the several fables grouped under the general title of The Lion's Share (and analogues of it) deals with much the same question of whether a specific work should be explicitly named when drawing on a general discussion which covers works like it. Guidelines are there to help shape an encyclopaedic article, but I have found administrators are prepared to allow a certain breadth of interpretation. They have also commented that guidelines are not hard and fast rules. I hope that you, as a fellow editor with more or less the same length of service as me, are not among those who believe they are. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If you haven't done so recently, I'd strongly advise re-reading WP:Original Research and WP:Verifiability. To take some of the recent additions one by one:
 * "Then about 1790, the parson poet Rev. Duncomb Davis, who lived locally, published his topographical “Poetical description of Tintern Abbey”, very much in the 18th century mode with many historical and topical discursions, including the method of iron-making that took place adjacent to the site." When you look up the reference that you've added to support this claim, it simply reads "Rev. Duncomb Davis; Poetical Description of Tintern Abbey; Reproduced from Charles Heath: Historical and Descriptive Accounts of the Ancient and Present State of Tintern Abbey by Charles Heath. Third edition; Monmouth: Charles Heath, 1803". There's no reference to any "18th century mode", which appears to be Original Research.
 * The claim that a particular poem is "the most famous poem connected with the Abbey" needed a citation; the revised wording, " the poem generally associated with the Abbey", still does. If it is the poem generally associated with the abbey, there should be a reliable source somewhere that says this, otherwise it is an unverifiable personal opinion.
 * " Robert Bloomfield, who took part in a similar excursion in 1811, also dedicated a long poem to “The Banks of the Wye”, where Tintern comes in for only a passing mention.". When you look at the citation for this, it makes no reference to any 1811 excursion. The text also draws a comparison between Bloomfield and Wordsworth's journeys and poems, which is OR unless it is supported by references.
 * "The same may be said of Edward Jerningham’s short lyric, “Tintern Abbey”, written in 1796, and of the sonnets celebrating visits about that time and later." again draws comparisons between different poems; this is OR unless it is supported by references.
 * "Sophia F. Ziegenhirt’s three-volume Gothic extravaganza" - this needs citation for exceptional language like "extravaganza", otherwise it is just an editor's opinion.
 * "The Gothic appeal of the building is apparent in the detail of studies and finished paintings" is mentioned in none of the citations that follow the claim, and appears to be OR.
 * " The same spirit reappears in 19th century paintings by Samuel Palmer (see Gallery) and Thomas Creswick" - similarly, this is not mentioned in the citations that follow, and appears to be OR.
 * "Another atmospheric approach was to demonstrate the building and its surroundings under different light conditions, of which Peter van Lerberghe’s moonlit interior of 1812 is a striking example " - again, not referenced and appears to be OR.


 * " the later painting by Turner in which the building is almost lost in the shimmer of light " - this interpretation needs a reference; the claim doesn't seem to appear in the citations. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)