Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bodiam Castle/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 30 January 2010.

Bodiam Castle

 * Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Bodiam Castle is one of the most picturesque castles in England, and one of the most popular. Built in the late 14th century, it's not certain that there was every any military action at Bodiam, so the history section is mostly about ownership and what the owners did with the castle. It's not a long article, but in light of what some might think is a quiet history, it's comprehensive. The main source for the article is the National Trust guidebook which cover the main points in the castle's history, and padded out by references from other books. I have searched the indexes of the journal Medieval Archaeology, but they had nothing to add beyond what is already in the article. Hopefully, others will agree that the prose is up to the mark. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to review the article. Nev1 (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. This is a detailed, informative article that describes not only the castle (with outstanding photography) but also its construction, military role, and iconic status in bygone days.  I don't feel well-qualified to spot technical flaws in this article, but beyond doubt it deserves to become a FA.  Wnt (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The castle is so photogenic I think it must be impossible to take a bad photo of it. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

- Peripitus (Talk) 06:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support assuming the issues I can see are fixed. I am far from able to find all textual errors but there are some problems I have found on reading through. References look good - .... all happy now - Peripitus (Talk) 02:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Situated in a moat and an artificial watery landscape, display and defence were was an important aspects of the castle as well as defence - gets rid of the "as well as"
 * The original phrasing was deliberate. It is a popular mindset that castles were military buildings first and foremost, however within castle studies there is great debate about their purpose. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The thrust appears to agree with the following text - Peripitus (Talk) 06:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * and is today open to the public - not sure what "today" adds here as it is implicit in the sentence.
 * Changed. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dalygrigge did would not have had long to spend in the completed castle - 3 years is either short or not.
 * Changed. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Link to disambiguation page Estate needs a specific target like Estate (law)
 * Someone added a host of useless links to the article which are now gone. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Notes 1-4. Is there a source for the currency conversion used ? I assume that reference 18 has been used, in which case it should be noted.
 * It shuld now be clearer. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Today, the castle is open to the public - would be much better as something like from the castle has been open to the public
 * Easier said than done. The problem is what constitutes "open to the public"; as mentioned earlier in the article, people were visiting the site as early as the 18th century, but it's probably only under the National Trust that it became official. The current phrasing is intentionally ambiguous, but I do not believe it hinders the reader's understand. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood - Peripitus (Talk) 06:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The area surrounding Bodiam Castle was landscaped at the same time as when the castle was built - seems to say the same thing in far less words
 * Agreed and changed. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * but only the moat survives today - the striken word does not seem to add anything of significance
 * Agreed. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * the interior is ruinous - shouldn't this be ruined rather than ruinous ?
 * The two are synonymous and it's more elegant than "in ruins" or "ruined". Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Elegance in writing is far from my forte - Peripitus (Talk) 06:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Images and alt text look good but File:Plan of Bodiam Castle.jpg is missing a licence. Should consider whether there is sufficient PD information to create a free replacement
 * The article now uses this redrawn image which has been relicensed. Thanks to for fixing this one, it was beyond my skills. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Much better - do you want the old Jpg deleted now ? All the changes look good.- Peripitus (Talk) 06:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've copied the relevant information to the new file so the old jpeg is ready to be deleted if you'd do the honours. Nev1 (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think all those text changes really do that much to improve the article. I might say "display as much as defense" but the original wording expresses the presumably surprising idea that a medieval castle would be built for show.  Saying when the castle was opened to the public would be nice, but given the uncertainty of some of the history it could be a very hard thing to track down (when was the cottage built?).  "Ruinous" is a synonym of ruined in Webster  though not (ahem) Wiktionary .  Your proofreading is useful, but I think it shows that the text is in pretty good shape. Wnt (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dab links sorted. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * The Saul reference is a journal article, title of the article should be in quotes, just like the taylor ref. (Normally I'd just have fixed, but I don't do citation, I do cite, so I have no clue how to fix it)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I'd used |publisher= instead of |journal= so the article title wasn't quite right. Nev1 (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support – Article reads well throughout, appears well-sourced (to be fair, I am not well-versed in the topic), and the photos are stunning. I made a couple of picky punctuation changes that weren't worth posting here, and the rest is in fine shape. This would be a more-than-worthy FA.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 22:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support – Beautifully written and well sources. Clear explanation of the history of the castle, its construction, ruin, and preservation.  Context was nicely established, and not over done.  Wonderful illustrations which particularly enhance the idea that the castle was created not only for protection but for effect, and possibly more the latter than the former.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment picture used in infobox is pending VP promotion.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 22:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Image review by Dr pda. Per a request on WT:FAC I have reviewed the images in the article to check for copyright/licensing issues. I don't have time at the moment to fully review the article.
 * File:Bodiam-castle-10My8-1197.jpg - OK (professional looking, author given as professional photographer, uploaded by user with same username as photographer, cc-by-sa-3.0 licence)
 * File:East Sussex outline map with UK.png - QUESTION: doesn't give source for base map (user-created map, PD-licensed, inset map is probably File:Uk_outline_map.png. User:Jza84 is still active, could contact to find out )
 * File:Death of Wat Tyler Froissart.jpg - OK (reproduction of image from 15th century manuscript, out of copyright, original source identified, online source identified, link dead, version in internet archive confirms information, added this link to image description page, correctly tagged with pd-art)
 * File:Aerial photo of Bodiam Castle.jpg - OK (professional aerial photo, link to photographer's website, where image is released under cc-by-sa-2.0)
 * File:Castle Bodiam1 cz.jpg - QUESTION: date 12/12/12 (user-created photo, metadata consistent with this, uploader name consistent with name in metadata, released under cc-by-sa-3.0, resolution of image half the max resolution of the camera)
 * File:Bodiam-Castle.jpg - OK (1906 painting, checked artist date of death, 1917 so out of copyright, added this to image description page, digital image source missing, found same resolution image online, added to image description page, changed tag from pd-old to pd-art, since uploader presumably didn't create image)
 * File:Bodiam Castle fromthe north.jpg - OK (user-created image, image quality consistent with this eg highlights, metadata show digital image produced by a film scanner in a photo lab, username or author and original uploader the same, licensed under GFDL and cc-by-sa-3.0)
 * File:File-Bodiam Castle gatehouse.jpg - OK (retouched photo released under cc-by-sa-3.0, original photo identified, professional quality, by professional photographer, username and name in metadata consistent, released under cc-by-sa-3.0 so derivative works allowed)
 * File:Bodiam murder holes.jpg - OK (user-created photo, image quality and metadata consistent with this, username of uploader and author match, released under cc-by-3.0)
 * File:Plan Bodham Castle.svg - QUESTION: does tracing a diagram violate copyright? (source of information given, svg version based on jpg version since deleted, don't know what licensing that had, but both based on map in book, image is traced image-corrected, and recaptioned by uploader, licensed under cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL)
 * Sadly, a copy (or tracing) of a copyrighted image falls under the same license as the original. Credit to the creator/uploader for their honesty, but this is not his to license. Dhatfield (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, give me a day to sort this out. I'll scour the local libraries to see if I can find an old plan that's free use. Nev1 (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the PD version I could find was not suitable for the article so I've added a fair use rationale to the plan. Is this ok? Nev1 (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Bodiam Castle 05.jpg - OK (user-created content, from flickr, still there, still licensed under cc-by-2.0)
 * File:Bodiam interior.jpg - OK (user-created photo, quality of original image consistent, username of uploader "s to the h" consistent with author Sean Hamerton, released as PD, no image metadata)

The images are thus mostly OK. For the East Sussex outline map, I would suggest you contact the creator, User:Jza84, and ask what the source of the base map was (eg did he draw it himself from mapping data, or was it from a PD source, or from a copyrighted source etc). For the image with the strange date, everything else looks OK, I'm not sure why that date was given. For the plan of the castle, you'll need to get the opinion of someone more experienced in copyright issues than me. (A map published in a book would presumably be copyrighted, tracing and modifying would then seem to be a derivative work, unless there are some other principles involved, e.g. the layout of the building is a fact, which is not copyrightable) Dr pda (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've contacted Jza84 to ask about the map. The image with the funny date had the meta data with when it was generated, so I've changed it to that. As for the plan, I am not sure. The original image was used with a fair use rationale; who would you recommend consulting for more information? The layout of the walls are factual, however the labelling is at times speculative. Nev1 (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest checking with people like User:Jappalang, User:Elcobbola or User:Awadewit for the plan. Also, I've seen Jza84's reply on his talk page; if you or he add to the East Sussex map something like what he did for the Manchester map, that would satisfy me. I'm also fine with changing that funny date to the one in the image metadata. Dr pda (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just expanded the description of the map and will now go and ask someone about the plan. Nev1 (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment I couldn't get passed the first paragraph regarding criterion 1a. I don't intend to block with an oppose since I am not on often enough, but with four complaints in the first paragraph of the most important part of the article, I believe this deserves a thorough copyedit. Dhatfield (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The grid reference belongs in the infobox, or anywhere other than the first sentence.
 * What is a "watery landscape"? A landscape containing water features? A bog? Klunky and vague.
 * "...display was an important aspect of the castle as well as defence." Perhaps you meant "...display was as important an aspect of the castle as defence." Or perhaps the entire could be rephrased to scan better.
 * Replace "home" with "residence".


 * Addressing your points in order:
 * The grid reference hardly breaks the flow because it is at the end of a sentence, but I have moved it to the infobox.
 * I'm not seeing the problem to be honest; if a landscape is watery, there's lots of water. "Watery landscape" is a phrase used in studies of the castle, so to suggest that it does not fit in with criterion 1a (good prose) is surprising.
 * As explained earlier in this FAC, the phrasing is deliberated. There is a popular image in the public eye that castles were exclusively military institutions, and it is often a surprise to learn that they were social symbols. We cannot know if Bodiam was meant for display as much as defence because we cannot read minds (Johnson spends quite a long time talking about this in his book Behind the Castle Gate.
 * Why?
 * I encourage you to read the rest of the article; any valid points will be addressed. Nev1 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I massaged the prose a bit and feel it flows well now. Marvellous read. Comments beginning a readthrough. I'll jot some notes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * By 1378, Edward Dalyngrigge owned the manor of Bodiam by virtue of marrying into a land-owning family - this section just sorta jumps into it. The first sentence should have a word or two explaining who Dalyngrigge was -a local nobleman/nouveau riche?
 * I've added a sentence] on who Dalyngrigge was. Nev1 (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ... many castles were slighted.. "slighted"? Interesting use of the verb.....?
 * Slighting is a technoical term which means to render a fortification undefendable. It's explained in the previous sentece (sort of) and there's a wikilink: "...when Bodiam Castle was dismantled (slighted)..." I know nothing of the origin of the word, but suspect it may be linked with the meaning to insult or be insulted, but that's another article... Nev1 (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see my note here; not your problem, just making you aware. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.