Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rochester 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 Karanacs 03:10, 13 October 2011.

Rochester Castle

 * Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This article has something for everyone: blood and violence, intrigue and rebellion, a remarkable building, treasure hunting, and even the ghost of Charles Dickens. Its history dates back to the 11th century and Rochester has seen more than its fair share of fighting. It was held by the Archbishops of Canterbury and the Kings of England, marking it as exceptionally important. I hope that even if castles don't normally tickle your fancy this one might peak your interest; Dickens certainly found it worth his attention. Nev1 (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Check formatting of third Brown bibliography entry
 * Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
 * Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations
 * Boydell Press or The Boydell Press? Batsford or B.T. Batsford? Check for consistency
 * Be consistent in how authors of larger works (ie. "in...") are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the formatting error in the third Brown entry; removed dashes from ISBNs; added in the missing locations (Unless journals should have them too? In which case it would be less hassle to remove them); it is now B. T. Batsford and Boydell Press consistently ; in larger works, the editor's surname now comes before his forename. Nev1 (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Support from the perspective of the specialist literature - the article covers the right ground, and is referenced from appropriate high quality sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support and earlier comments, it's certainly handy to have someone else familiar with this kind of subject. Nev1 (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Support - wrt Criterion 1a, but I'm not sure about "ended up costing". Graham Colm (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support GrahamColm. Prose isn't my strongest suit so it's nice to know it reads ok to others. What is it about "ended up costing" that's got you worried? Nev1 (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks: I checked footnotes 15 a and b, 16, 33, 49, and 51. In each case, the material was fully supported by the sources, and there was no copyright violation or close paraphrasing. – Quadell (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Review by Quadell


 * The captions need full-stops only when they are complete sentences. A single caption should not contain both a sentence fragment and a complete sentence. Nearly every caption needs modification.


 * Much of the sourcing is from books that I cannot check, particularly Brown (1969), and I'm concerned about some of the sourcing. (I assume you still have access to this source.) For instance, in the first paragraph of the "Early history" section, the first cite is p. 5-6 of this text. But does this just source the conjectured site of the original castle? Or does it also source castles being imported in the Norman Conquest, and Rochester being an important city? If not, those claims could use a separate source. If so, can you confirm that this source is not copied closely enough to be a close paraphrasing problem?


 * Similarly, the "It was probably William the Conqueror..." paragraph has a first cite of the same source, pages 6-8. Does that merely support the capitulation of the garrison? Or does it support all of the information in the paragraph, from William's donation to Odo on down? Or, again, does cite 24 (p. 12) cover just the sentence that precedes it, or everything from the civil war on down? Forgive my caution, but I'm not able to check for myself, so I have to ask.


 * Not a problem. The cited source covers all the information. I can quote the relevant parts here. Nev1 (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at the captions, what do you think? Nev1 (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I tweaked a little more. I longer see any problems with the captions. – Quadell (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't reproduce the entire passage here for reasons of copyright, but the relevant parts for the first paragraph are:
 * ""Rochester, modern and medieval city built within the walls of a Roman town, sited where the Roman Watling Street crosses the Medway on its route from London to Canterbury and Dover, the seat of bishops and the staging-post of kings, has a distinguished history ... Castles ... were a Norman importation into England and a principal means whereby the Norman Conquest was achieved and the Norman settlement rendered permanent. ... there is reason to assume that the new fortification stood beside the river, south of the south-west angle of the city and outside the line of the walls, on the site afterwards and still known as Boley Hill""


 * The second passage you enquire about is a bit longer, do you want me to produce that too? Nev1 (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No need, your verbal confirmation is enough for me. And your first example shows that close paraphrasing is not an issue. – Quadell (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Support: This article is very well sourced and organized, and is a great read. All prose problems have been fixed. I think this meets all our FA requirements. – Quadell (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Previous comments and replies moved to this FAC's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The following applies to the last section, Architecture.
 * Replace every instance of "however", usually with "but".
 * "it underwent limited alteration of its fabric": I don't follow
 * "it remains significantly intact and is considered one of the most important 12th-century keeps in England and France.": one of the most important intact keeps, or one of the most important keeps?
 * "12 ft": in that sentence and the next: personally I'm fine with not converting every measurement, I think it's tedious, but unfortunately it's Wikipedia's style.
 * "an early example of dividing the keep into separate areas ...": an early example of a keep divided into separate areas
 * "Hedingham Castle's contemporary keep": "contemporary" is perfectly acceptable meaning "of the time" in a scholarly journal, because everyone will know the meaning, but since the word more commonly means "modern" these days, it's usually ambiguous in a Wikipedia article. "contemporaneous" and "of the time" are often good choices. - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "The third floor had access to the roof; its purpose is uncertain, but may have contained further accommodation, and definitely contained a second chapel.": The third floor had a second chapel and access to the roof, and may have held additional accommodations.
 * "accommodation": In this article, all of these should be changed to "accommodations", per the online Cambridge Dictionary.
 * "Despite its current bare state, in its heyday the keep would have been richly decorated with hangings and furnishings.": The keep was richly decorated with hangings and furnishings. [and move this up to around the place where you start describing the keep]
 * "then rebuilt in the 1249–1250.": then rebuilt during 1249 and 1250. ["in" would also work for me, but one editor has indicated today that they prefer "during" when mentioning two years.]
 * "G. T. Clark made some notes on the structure while it was still and standing": That's the damn thing about keeps, you have to make your notes quick before they run off.
 * "Rochester Castle is defended by a stone outer wall. The western part of the circuit, a stretch facing the river, dates from when Gundulf built the first stone wall enclosing the castle." The western part of the stone outer wall, a stretch facing the river, dates from when Gundulf built the first wall enclosing the castle.
 * "4.5 feet (1.4 m) thick at the base, narrowing to 2 ft at the top; it rose to a height of around 22 feet (6.7 m).": Reviewers are probably going to ask for more consistency on units.
 * "From this position to the location of the former main gatehouse in the north-east dates from 1367–1370." Something's missing, and I'd probably say "around 1367 to 1370".
 * "Two towers were built with the wall,": along? at the same time as? within?
 * "two-storeys high": two storeys high
 * "for use a residence": for use as a residence
 * "the castle was surrounded by a ditch although much of it has since been filled in.": the castle was surrounded by a ditch, much of which has since been filled in.
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm missing something, there are no instances of "however" in the architecture section.
 * The source lists reasons for the keep's importance and among them is "the completeness of its masonry; its consequent legibility, due to limited later alteration (notably the south-east corner)". Perhaps the problem is the "of its fabric" bit as it sounds a bit jargon-y. This may help.
 * I've clarified that it's one of the most important surviving 12th-century keeps.
 * Hmm, the thing is the two occurrences of "12 ft" separated by a sentence, and just a few words before the first one is a conversion for 125 ft. I think one conversion is enough and the reader can divide roughly by ten to get an idea of the others.
 * Changed
 * I see your point, so have changed it to contemporaneous.
 * I like your suggestion, I'd missed the possible ambiguity with regard to the roof. I've made the change.
 * Hmm, it does seem to be usually plural but the sources I have been using prefer the singular which suggests to me either is acceptable. Nonetheless, I've changed accommodation to accommodations throughout; it's jars from my point of view but that may be because I'm not used to seeing it that way.
 * "Accommodation" might be fine, and possibly preferred, in scholarly articles. The reason I'm glad you changed it is that the word can mean so many different things in contemporary (haha) prose, and I can see readers thinking, "Did they mean accommodations or something else?". - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good suggestion to me so I've moved it with the suggested wording.
 * Changed to during.
 * Woops. Everyone knows they stay in the same place as long as someone's watching them.
 * Changed.
 * I've added a conversion for 2 ft.
 * Yep, I've made the change.
 * Hopefully this should make it clear that the towers were part of the wall.
 * Hyphen removed.
 * Missing word added.
 * Changed. Nev1 (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I should have said earlier that pasting urls for diffs isn't necessary, I typically look at one diff of all the changes. Working on it now. - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's probably a hangover from trying to write a Featured Article: everything needs a source to prove it! Including the diffs doesn't slow me down significantly in any case. Nev1 (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, it's been impressive. Nev1 (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I enjoyed it. I'd like to see more castle articles, and more of your articles, at FAC, but I won't be able to spend this much time on the next one. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For a lot of castles, the history is a story of changing ownership and repairs and maintenance. Rochester has one of the more colourful histories and it was particularly fun to write about the sieges. Nev1 (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Status report: I've asked Quadell if that image is still an issue. - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Nothing's missing. - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Has there been an image review? Ucucha (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Image review: I have carefully inspected all images. File:Odo bayeux tapestry.png could use more information (date and origin of the Bayeux Tapestry, link to the article). Other than that, all images are free and valid, and have all necessary information. – Quadell (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is still an issue... – Quadell (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, that slipped through. I've added some more detail about the age of the Bayeux Tapestry. Nev1 (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Image review passed. – Quadell (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.