Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Warkworth 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 Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011.

Warkworth Castle

 * Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The ruins of Warkworth Castle are a spectacular sight to match their owners' interesting history. Founded sometime in the 12th century, but extensively remodelled later, the castle belonged to one of northern England's most powerful families, the Percys. The article is primarily based on the two most recent English Heritage guidebooks, written by authoritative authors: Summerson wrote many of EH's guidebooks and worked on the monograph for Brougham Castle, and Goodall recently published The English Castle 1066–1650 which has been widely praised. Hopefully, if you can wade through the army of people called Henry in the article you will find it worth your time. Thanks to Martin of Sheffield for helping out with the polishing, and to anyone who takes the time to review the article. Nev1 (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Further reading and Bibliography formatting should be the same
 * Probably worth noting that ODNB is subscription-based. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added Template:ODNBsub to each of the ODNB citations. I think the differences between the formatting of the further reading and bibliography sections were the absence of the location where the book was published and an ISBN, both of which have now been added. Nev1 (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Specialist content
 * In terms of covering the specialist literature on the castle, the article does a good job. The key authors are all present and the article reflects the different perspectives on interpreting the building. Support from this perspective. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Spot checks
 * Did Creighton; citations were accurate and no evidence of close-paraphrasing.Hchc2009 (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * I think I read everything. I might check it over again once the issues are addressed. For the prose, I just gave some examples. That doesn't mean its all there is.


 * Wikilink
 * Parliment (parliment comes up several times in the article)
 * Bamburgh Castle
 * Anglo-saxon period (Anglo-Saxon England)
 * Scottish Wars
 * coat of arms
 * Why is John Lewyn redlinked, but none of the other nobles who don't have an article not redlinked?
 * Bamburgh Castle and the Anglo-Scottish Wars are already linked. John Lleywn is linked because as architect of Bolton and Warkworth Castles ad Durham Cathedral he is notable by Wikipedia's standards, and ideally would have an article. Which other people do you think should be linked? Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger fitz Richard is probably the one that came clearly to mind as he was mentioned several times. However, I do not claim to be an expert in knowing which of these people are notable or not, just wondering why you thought only John Lewyn was. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There was originally a link to his article as it happens, but if you check the article's talk page there some background as to why I chose to remove the link. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Prose
 * Remove some passive tense such as "In the late 19th century, Warkworth Castle was refurbished by the dukes" -> "In the late 19th century, the dukes refurbished Warkworth castle"
 * Had a go at that. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "When the castle was founded and by whom is uncertain" -> "When and by whom the castle was founded is uncertain"
 * I'm not convinced that the suggested change would be an improvement. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * " When he in turn died in 1240, his own son, " -> "When he died in 1240, his son,"
 * Though your suggestion creates a simpler sentence, the current phrasing, was chosen to avoid repeating the previous sentence. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * At the very least remove own. It's a redundant usage as his already implies that the son was fathered by him. Better would be to figure out a simplistic way of phrasing it that doesn't repeat the other sentance, but that's obviously harder to do. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been addressed by implementing Dank's suggestion below. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * " one and a half - hyphenate
 * Done. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * now-ruined - rephase to not use hyphenated word
 * It's not clear why "now-ruined" is undesirable. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style/Words to watch While the prefix "now-" is not specifically mentioned in that list, it's being used in a similar manner. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "The high end – next to the withdrawing chambers – was for the earl and his family, and the low end – next to the kitchen and other service rooms – for the rest of the rest of the household." Don't use 2 sets of emdashes in 1 sentance. Either change to comma, paretheses or split it into 2 sentances.
 * Fair point, I have switched to parenthesis. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What existed before the Norman conquest? Was there any kind of fortification?
 * No. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A little info on what the Treaty of Durham would be nice. The reader shouldn't have to click on it just to find out the basics.
 * I've added some more context. Nev1 (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The info about when the castle was presumably founded by Henry II should be moved to right after the declaration. The sentance at the end of the first paragraph seems out of place at the end.
 * Could you be more specific, which sentence are you referring to? Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the sentence is out of place at the end, but I think it makes more sense prefixed by a "though", and I made the edit: [Warkworth may have been surrendered to Henry II], "though it is possible that Henry II founded Warkworth Castle in 1157 to secure his lands in Northumberland ...". - Dank (push to talk) 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's an improvement. Nev1 (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "When the castle was founded and by whom is uncertain, though traditionally Prince Henry of Scotland has been held responsible." - That sentance seems to be acting a the intro for the remainder of the paragraph and yet it leaves out a crucial info about the possible date mentioned much later. IE, the final sentance contradicts the assertion that there is no ideas about what dates "may" have been the founding while making the asertion that Henry is recognized which is explained later and thus the reader is not suprised when there is info about the founding at the end by Henry, but would be by relative and more speicifc date. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, that statement does act as an introduction of sorts, but an introduction doesn't need doesn't need to summarise what comes next. It does not say "there is no ideas", just that there is uncertainty. The various possibilities are then laid out, so there is no contradiction. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * However, when reading that first sentence it makes it sound like no actual dates are known, but the last sentence gives at least 2 possible dates. That may not be a direct contraindication in fact with the summary sentence, but it gives the uninformed reader the idea that there are no clear dates period. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  01:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't do given that it says uncertain, which is different to unknown. A reader doesn't need to be knowledgeable about Warkworth Casltle to know that uncertain means there could be a range of possibilities. This isn't a situation that can be painted in black and white terms and I'm going to stick with the current wording. Nev1 (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  03:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "The Catholic Thomas Percy joined the rebellion". Either remove the descriptor Catholic or explain before this why its important to note he's Catholic
 * It's important that Thomas Percy was Catholic because it was a rebellion of Catholics, as made clear by the previous sentence. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess it must be the lack of the info on Queen Elizabeth I's religion that makes the statement seem off. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I took it for granted that readers would know Elizabeth was Protestant, I've now clarified that in the article. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I knew that, but not everyone is Christian or knows about the Catholic-Protestant wars. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  01:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "d (he was fined £30,000 and held in the Tower of London)," - is that relevant to the article?
 * Yes, because it illustrates that Percy was in financial troubles and not free to directly control his property. Without that, when the earl's financial troubles are mentioned later the reader would be unaware of the cause. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The last paragtaph in Dukes of Northumberland doesn't seem to fit under that section name. Perhaps it should be renamed to something else. Even "Dukes of Northumberland and beyond" or something more generic like "Late 17th century to present". It shouldn't be broken up though as that would make the sections too small. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  22:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed the section title as per your suggestion. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated comments. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
 * In Warkworth Castle, I don't believe I've seen subsections denoted by bolded words rather than subheadings before at FAC. Do other articles do this? - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've not noticed it in any other FAs, I just thought I'd try something different to avoid making the table of contents too long, but I'm more than happy to switch to conventional subheadings. Nev1 (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On the points that aren't that important, my strategy at FAC is to try to avoid rocking the boat, so I think the edit you just made is a good idea. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Ownership of Warkworth Castle continued to descend through the family when Robert fitz Roger died in 1214 and was succeeded by his son, John. When he in turn died in 1240, his own son, Roger, inherited.": This is mentioned above. Personally, I'd go with: Ownership of Warkworth Castle continued to descend through the family when Robert fitz Roger was succeeded by his son John in 1214, who was succeeded by his son Roger in 1240.
 * That avoids the repetition of "died", so works for me. Nev1 (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "The now-ruined 15th-century building replaced an earlier hall on the same site, dating from about 1200,": This is mentioned above. The previous paragraph deals with another structure from around 1200, so per WP:Checklist, I recommend you move the information on the earlier hall that's in this sentence up to the end of the previous paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a tricky one. The section isn't arranged in a chronology so much as a tour so I'll have to think about this. Nev1 (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood the sentence ... now I agree that we can't move bits of it up to the previous paragraph. I think it could be clearer. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It might help that I've swapped the information on the Lion Tower and great hall as the great hall was the more important building. Nev1 (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Warkworth Castle was undefended. Its defences at the time were described as "feeble".": I'm not sure I know what it means for something to be undefended with feeble defenses. - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, the first bit refers to Roger's action, ie: me made no move to defend it. I've changed it to make this clearer. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "when his son Robert was one-and-a-half": It's not wrong, it's just that it's not often that the "half" is significant enough to mention, so, "... was one year old", maybe. But if the historians think it's important, I'm not in a position to argue. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point, so I've changed it per your suggestion. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "A year later, John made the Crown inheritor.": I'm not positive people will understand. Also, did he leave everything to the Crown in his will, or just the family estates, or just the castle?
 * As it happens I posted the relevant bit from Godall on the article's talk page. I'm cautious of saying John wrote the king into his will because that not what the source says, but it's pretty much what happened. I've clarified that it was all of his property that John gave to the king and it now says "A year later, John made arrangements so that on his death the king would receive all of his property." Nev1 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "The years between roughly 1310 and 1330 were characterised by the inability of the English ...": I'd prefer that you either attribute that or shorten it to: "Between roughly 1310 and 1330, the English were unable ..."
 * Yeah, I see the problem here, I've changed it to "Between roughly 1310 and 1330 the English struggled to deal with Scottish raids in northern England". Nev1 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "[Percy] would be paid 500 marks a year in perpetuity in return for leading a company of men-at-arms. In exchange for the annual fee, in 1328 Percy was promised the rights to the Clavering's property.": I don't follow, unless "would" is in the sense of "would have been" here. Was he in fact paid 500 marks a year for life? - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He was, "would" was a result of me using the wrong tense there. Is the bit about exchanging the fee for the Clavering's property clear? Nev1 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't really follow. - Dank (push to talk)
 * I expressed myself poorly, the bottom line is I changed it to "Henry de Percy ... was in the service of Edward III and was paid 500 marks a year in perpetuity in return for leading a company of men-at-arms". Nev1 (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "the march areas": could use a link.
 * So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down almost halfway, to Percy family. These are my edits. I plan to come back to FAC reviewing within a week, after I get USS Arizona (BB-39) started. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Continuing. [Disclaimer: I'm running a fever today, so I'm just going to throw out some suggestions ... I hope they make sense.] - Dank (push to talk)
 * The only thing left over from above is: "for they have the hertes of the people by north and ever had": Although WP:MOS only asks for in-text attribution for a full sentence or more, Chicago (Ch. 13) wants in-text attribution for any significant quote, and I recommend attribution here. - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC) [The footnote doesn't tell us who said it, either.]
 * Sorry I didn't get to this immediately, I've now clarified the quote was from John Hardyng. Nev1 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "In the 1380s John of Gaunt, a rival since 1381 and son of Edward III, rebuilt the nearby Dunstanburgh Castle which may have driven Percy to enhance his own main castle. On the other hand it has been suggested that the earl was spurred by a programme of building at the castles of Brancepeth, Raby, Bamburgh, and Middleham, and Sheriff Hutton by the House of Neville, a family becoming increasingly powerful in northern England.": I'd structure this along the lines of: Percy may have enhanced his main castle to compete with John of Gaunt, who rebuilt (was rebuilding?) the nearby Dunstanburgh Castle, or the House of Neville ... - Dank (push to talk) 20:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That simplifies things nicely, so that's what I've done. Nev1 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "similarities between the keep and work at Bamburgh Castle": If "work" means parts of Bamburgh, which parts?
 * I've clarified the situation by changing the sentence to "Architectural similarities between Warkworth's keep, Bolton Castle, and the domestic buildings at Bamburgh Castle". Nev1 (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "The earl's 14-year-old son claimed to be a loyal to the king but that he was not to be able to formally surrender the castle,": There's probably a way to say that in fewer words.
 * I've had a go at rephrasing it and have temporarily undone your further change. The thing is the surrender hinged on the son's claim not to be able to do it formally, ie: giving an exuse rather than flat out refusing. The quote from the source is below. Nev1 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "At Warkworth, the king's officer was met by Percy's 14-year-old son, who declared himself a loyal subject but regretted that he did not have the ceremonial trappings necesssary to surrender the castle formally to the king, and on this absurd pretext kept control of it."


 * What does "ceremonial trappings" mean here? - Dank (push to talk) 00:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good question, but unfortunately Goodall doesn't explain. Nev1 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Towards the end of the century the curtain wall was pulled down around 1752 was rebuilt.": ?
 * I got into a tangle there, but I've moved mention of the rebuilda couple of sentences earlier where the demolition is mentioned. Nev1 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Moving from the bailey east of the tower, turning south took a visitor to the castle's chapel.": From the bailey towards the east, or the bailey that was east?
 * I've changed it to "Entering through the east of the tower from the bailey", hoping that it makes it clear the bailey was on the east of the tower. Nev1 (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "The northern door led to the great hall, and west to a cellar under the great chamber.": I don't follow.
 * I've changed it to "The northern door led to the great hall, and the western door to a cellar under the great chamber", does that clarify things? Nev1 (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

*I still think the sentence about the 14-year-old son raises a question it doesn't answer (see above), but I'm out of time, and on balance, I have no problem supporting. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * After machicolations, I added "openings for stones to be dropped on attackers"; feel free to tweak. (Per WP:Checklist, when many readers won't even be able to guess what you mean, provide at least a clue as well as a link.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That certainly makes sense, although I've changed it to a more general "missiles" than "stones" as what the defenders could throw at atttackers through machicolations wasn't limited. Nev1 (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Entering the east side of the tower from the bailey and turning south, took a visitor to the castle's chapel.": Fix this if it's wrong, I went with: Directly south of the east side of the tower was the castle's chapel. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's correct. Nev1 (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Continuing. "building work" (instead of "construction") sounds a little strange to me ... does it mean something different than "construction"? - Dank (push to talk) 05:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Algernon Percy, 10th Earl of Northumberland, supported Parliament, which may have prevented the Scots from doing much damage to the castle.": How so? - Dank (push to talk) 17:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly because the Scots were at that time against the King: see English_Civil_War and "my enemy's enemy is my friend". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay ... it sounds like it didn't prevent them from attacking, it made them less inclined to attack. Suggestions? - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, just those two questions left from me. They don't alter my support. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Warkworth_Castle_plan.JPG: what type of source is this?
 * The 1954 plan is from a book published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, I don't have the book so I'll ask Hchc2009 for the page number. Nev1 (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Plan_of_Warkworth_Castle's_keep,_1909.jpg: page number? Also, I had to laugh when I saw the "Do not copy to Commons" tag immediately above the "Now available on Commons" tag - that's probably worth sorting out. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, headdesk. A similar issue regarding plans from Gotch's work arose during Peveril Castle's FAC and I asked that it should be deleted. I've asked again. The online source give "pp.82ff" as the location of the plan so that's what I've added to the file description. Nev1 (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments nicely written, I made one small tweak, hope you like it. If not its a wiki..... Information about the materials used and the size of the place would be nice. Heights of walls, area enclosed and types of stone would all be relevant if they are available, and perhaps a comparison with other castles? Also a slightly larger map showing it in the context of the loop in the river might make clearer its defensibility.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw the change and moving the clarifying statement about the House of Neville earlier made sense. The suggestions you make are good. I might be able to stitch together a map from Vision Britain; Martin of Sheffield made a similar suggestion about adding a map but I only recently remembered the website. As for heights, area enclosed etc, Summerson and Goodall didnt dwell on measurements (in fact I can't remember sseing a single one), but I should be able to get some rough measurements from one of the plans they provide, though not heights. What kind of comparison are you expecting to see? Castles come in all shapes and sizes, so while some elements may be compared to other sites (ie: the brief mention of Bolton Castle) it's not always easy. Events at Alnwick are mentioned occasionally to contrast the fortunes of Warkworth, although the article doesn't delve into specifics of design. Nev1 (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If the sources don't cover this then I'd be surprised, but for FA we only need to check if facts are available. If they aren't available in reliable sources then we leave that for some future editor after such info becomes available. However a slightly different picture might make some of my points visually. What do you think of File:River Coquet with Warkworth and the Castle in the background - geograph.org.uk - 538130.jpg?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with that photo is it's pretty poor quality. Though not quite as clear, the Turner picture adds something similar, showing the river below the castle, and has the added value of being by a notable painter. The main sources are not exclusively technical, so it's probably the authors felt it unnnecessary to weight down the text with excessive numbers, especially when plans are available in each from which such measurements can be taken. It's not that measurements are not available as such, more that the authors haven't included them in the prose. That said, I think it would have been nice if they had added a handful. Nev1 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think of this? It's part of an Ordnance Survey map published in 1945. It's covered under Crown Copyright which expires 50 years after publication so licensing isn't a problem. The scale is 1 mile to one inch, so you can't see any detail on the castle, but I think it works at putting it within its immediate landscape. Nev1 (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks that certainly gives local context. If possible it would be good to have a sentence or two on strategic importance if you can source it. If that A road is the old coast road then this castle would have been sited at the junction of the coast road and the river.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Comments  - reading through now. You know the drill :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This sentence " The Office of Works was given custody of the castle in 1922." is a bit too short in the lead, and I can't tack it onto anything easily. Can you add some info that makes it a tad longer? I feel it'll make the lead flow better.
 * Fair point, it now reads "Alan Percy, 8th Duke of Northumberland, gave custody of the castle to the Office of Works in 1922." Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ..... traditionally Prince Henry of Scotland has been held responsible - " held responsible" to me has a somewhat negative connotation which makes it sounds a little odd here. Funnily enough, "thought responsible" doesn't, so I think is a better fit...?
 * I like the suggestion so I've made the change. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ... and surrounding manor to Roger fitz Richard. - I think an adjective or descriptor of who/what Roger fitz Richard is. If we know nothing, then adding "one" before his name will intimate that nicely.
 * Quite handily I'd put some information on the talk that helps with this. I changed it to "Roger fitz Richard, a member of a noble Norman family." Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 *  Twice in 1327 Scottish forces besieged the castle without success - any idea why they didn't succeed?
 * I'd love to know, but the secondary sources don't go into much detail, my guess would be because the primary sources don't either. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * From the great hall was a door to a chapel and beyond that was a great chamber, a formal room where the lord would meet guests. - hmm, I think it needs a rewrite as doesn't scan well to my eyes, but an alternative isn't jumping to mind straightaway.
 * How about this? "A chapel off the great hall led to a large formal room ..." - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That works for me too. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * is there anything on current annual visitors, facilities or functions it is used for?
 * Where possible I like to give some recent visitor numbers. This site, the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, is handy but not comprehensive. So far I've had no luck looking for figures for Warkworth. Regarding facilities there are information boards and guided tours but not really what you might call a museum. I wouldn't be surprised if re-enactments of one sort or another were put on for visitors (it happens at Kenilworth Castle for example), but the English Heritage events page is giving nothing away. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise looking pretty good on prose and comprehensiveness grounds Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The change from 'considered "feeble" so when the Scots invaded in 1173 it was undefended' to 'considered "feeble", and was left undefended when the Scots invaded in 1173' is a change of meaning. In the former the feeble state _caused_ the castle to be undefended whilst in the latter there is no such implication. PS, as I posted to Nev's talk page, the map makes things much clearer. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, this gives me a chance to talk about one of the harder Checklist items, WP:Checklist. Please tell me if that, and the related section on the talk page, shed any light. - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with the checklist entirely, but that's a different issue. Without access to the sources I can't make any judgement on this instance, it was just that when I read the differences it seemed to be more than a simple gramatical or stylistic change.  Your judgement call! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


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