Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buckton 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 not promoted by Karanacs 00:32, 25 March 2009.

Buckton Castle

 * Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it fulfils the FA criteria. It is perhaps a little short compared to other FAs, but this article represents the limit of what is known about a small castle on a high hill in the north west of England. In the words of Greater Manchester's county archaeologist "Greater Manchester is not well known for its castles, but Buckton Castle will put the area well and truly on the castle map as it is clearly the best preserved ... in the county area". Nev1 (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment from  -- Using WP:REFTOOLS, and the dabs/external links checker tools, the ref formatting, dabs, and external links are found up to speed.-- ₮RU  CӨ   14:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from 
 * The cited text in the lead should be moved to the main article text. Citations in the lead usually show that the lead has unique information rather than being a summary of the entire article per WP:LEAD. I think that the lead should be longer, incorporating more of a summary of the history section. - appears ok now - Peripitus (Talk) 09:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The references have been moved into the main body of the article, and where the information did not appear later, that was moved too. The lead has been expanded slightly. Nev1 (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any recommendations how to expand the lead further? I believe it covers the main points, ie: the layout and location, SAM status, current condition, history and who built it, and later uses. Nev1 (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry - missed this one. I've printed the article out and will read later today and respond then - Peripitus (Talk) 03:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Notes-references-notes-bibliography sectioning looks odd especially with only one note. I think it would be better if the single note was done as a inline reference to incorporate it with the other (reference type) notes, the hanging "References" heading removed, and the remaining two sections all changed to level 2 headings (leaving just Notes with the footnotes and References with the referenced works) looks much better now - Peripitus (Talk) 20:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The notes section has been removed, but the references section is still divided into notes and bibliography. Nev1 (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 3-metre (9.8 ft) - if the source says only 3 m then 9.8 feet is too precise - use 3 m. 1.2-metre (3.9 ft) - I would be sure that the English source said 4 feet so perhaps this should be rounded as well. I suggest checking the precision of the convert template use in all places. looks good - Peripitus (Talk) 02:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The number of decimal places for starting and finishing value now matches in all cases. Nev1 (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is some text work needed to make this flow better eg:
 * In the "location" section&mdash;Buckton Castle liesis situated about 335 metres&mdash;Remove redundancy and note that "about" and a precise figure (for a castle) of 335 m don't seem to work together well. Consider combining some of the sentences in this paragraph particularly the penultimate and preceding one. In the last sentence it implies that the castle itself guards, which is improbable. - Done - Peripitus (Talk) 20:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Both changes made. Nev1 (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In the history section, paragraph 3, the word "site" is used repeatedly and this harms the paragraphs readability. A different wording is needed to make this flow better - fixed now - Peripitus (Talk) 11:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, alternatives have been found and the word "site" is now only used once in the paragraph. Nev1 (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

- Peripitus (Talk) 12:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bibliography has some information issues eg: The first reference does not have the volume number (3), the second appears to have the incorrect publisher (Current Publishing is at Lamb House...I don't think that the house is the publisher) and the third needs to be unabbreviated (unless this is the standard way to do this one ?). Consistent now. I've changed the first three to cite-journal to get the volume # in the same place and replaced two hyphens with endashes (per somewhere in WP:MOS I think) - Peripitus (Talk) 11:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Nev1 (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Further Comments from  - all of my previous concerns have been addressed.
 * Note: 1,055 words.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the article is short (appropriate length though I think for the subject) consideration needs to be given to explaining what a ringwork is - this will not make it overly long as it might in other articles.
 * An explanation has been added at the start of the layout section as that's the first occasion apart from the lead and infobox where the term is used. Nev1 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Last sentence of "Location" tells the reader that it was in a medieval manor. The text needs clarity as to whether the castle or the Valley (or both) were so placed - one word here could help. Also what is the significance of the manor it is in, as the manor is not then mentioned elsewhere ?
 * Boith were in the Tame valley. A little has been added on what a manor is and why it's not mentioned later, ie: the lordship it was a part of was much more important. Nev1 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "history", paragraph 2, 1st sentence: "in 1360 stating"....who stated this ?
 * It should now be clear that it was the estate survey that recorded this information. Nev1 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * the article notes that "It is the oldest surviving building...". Surely it's not a "surviving building" but rather a site where a building once existed ? Should this be "It is the earliest known built structure...." or something similar.
 * In this case, "surviving building" did not mean that it's an upright structure or visible above ground, but that traces of it do survive. I've changed it to "oldest ruined building..." which is hopefully clearer. Nev1 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Apart from that I am happy with the comprehensiveness (I will be interested to see the results of the 2009 archaeological work), referencing, images and general layout. As for the writing style; it reads as well written to me - Peripitus (Talk) 09:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The 2009 report will hopefully make interesting reading and may clear up a few questions (was it really abandoned before it was finished? Why? It would have been a lot of effort and expense to go to and then not complete the work). When I can get my hands on a copy, I'll update the article. Cheers for the review, Nev1 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - All my concerns addressed now - like the article - Peripitus (Talk) 22:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the article is quite good as it stands and reads, but to mention the elephant in the room, at 1132 words can we be assured that it meets 1.b. Not challenging, just asking. Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's as comprehensive as it can be, all the sources have been drained dry, and in all honesty there's not a whole lot to say about the castle (partly because it may never have been finished and therefore possibly never used). Nev1 (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After Sandy's note I looked again. I can't find anything, that is covered by a source I can find, that is missing from the article. It seems to me to be an adequate size article given the subject and I concur with Nev1 on this point. More material will be available I expect after the 2009 archaeological work but there seems nothing more to add now - Peripitus (Talk) 01:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not inclined to support to be honest, it fells - reads- as slight. It meets all the FAC requirments, but at such a lenght seems not to meet the spirit. Ceoil (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Problems—I tend to agree with Ceoil on the coverage (you finish and think "is that all?"); the prose has issues, too. Here are a few examples.
 * Ideal example of how to avoid a triple-bunger. Here, there's inconsistency: "The castle is oval, with a 3-metre (10 ft) wide stone curtain wall, surrounded by a ditch 10 metres (33 ft) wide and 6 metres (20 ft) deep." What we need is "a stone curtain wall 3 metres (10 ft) wide,...". Tony the Tiger, please note.
 * "It is recorded as ..."—we start to want an immediate reference if you put it that way. Just make the statement and talk about recording where you reference it in the body of the text.
 * "above ground ruins"—hyphen.
 * "reveal" rather than "find". Or better, "foster research into its ..."?
 * "both castle and valley"—you can remove "the" when it's A and B; it's elegant.
 * "Buckton Castle was probably built by William de Neville, lord of Longdendale, in the late 12th century;[5] which would make it contemporary with other castles in Greater Manchester such as Dunham, Manchester, Stockport, and Ullerwood." No. This is the opposite of a comma splice; after a semicolon, there must be a stand-alone grammatical sentence, whereas after a comma, there must not be one. Either make it a comma or change which to this. (And upper-case "Lord"?)
 * Use ellipsis to remove one little word: "The castle has been the subject of antiquarian studies since the 18th century, and it was originally thought to have been the location of an Iron Age hill fort."
 * See here, by the way. Tony   (talk)  14:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've addressed your specific examples with this edit (at least some were "advanced" mistakes rather than elementary errors!) and will take another look at the prose to see if there's anything else I can do. As for "is that all", I'm afraid it is. Reviewers will have to decide for themselves whether it's enough. I understand it's short, and I knew it wouldn't get an easy ride, but there isn't any more to say at the moment. Nev1 (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.