Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Windsor 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 00:24, 17 January 2011.

Windsor Castle

 * Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because Windsor Castle is one of the best known castles in England, with a fascinating historical and architectural history. To me one of the most interesting elements of the castle is the way in which the architecture is rarely considered "perfect" at any point - numerous monarchs have changed aspects of the castle in attempts to improve it. Some have worked well... some less so. It is a fairly long article, but covers a number of centuries of events and history.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You have only recently edited this article: were Malleus Fatuorum and Nev1 consulted about this nomination and do they agree it's ready? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe so - link to the dialogue is here. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheers. This is my first article at FAC, so all advice/direction very gratefully received! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The edit count is deceptive, Hchc2009 usually works in user space and the bulk of what you see was moved into article space on 18 December. My own edits have been minor. Nev1 (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Has a full copy-edit been done? The first section I read in detail was "1992 fire" and "Today" and I've seen a few grammar issues. e.g. "and it is believed that one of the spotlights being in the work set fire to an altar curtain during the morning." which should be "one of the spotlights being USED in the work..." or similar. Also " It was not until late afternoon that the blaze was began to come under control" Two such mistakes would suggest that the article hasn't been checked with the rigour required.
 * "Fire-fighters applied water to contain the blaze, whilst other staff attempted" OED says firefighter? (i.e. no hyphen). Also firefighters are not staff of the castle, thus to say "other staff attempted..." is incorrect. Should be "firefighters applied... while staff attempted."
 * "In the last few years, Windsor Castle has hosted visit from President Mbeki of South Africa, King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Chirac of France." Chirac will be out of office 4 years in May so to say "in the last few years" is stretching the meaning of that phrase. Also missing s from "visits"
 * "During the queen's tenure of the castle much has been done" -- "of the castle" is redundant.
 * "Security has continued to be an issue for Windsor Castle" -- A sentence after this explaining in what way security is an issue would help the article.
 * I'll try take a look at the rest of the article in detail soon.Mark83 (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Changes made as identified. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The ungrammatical sentence "It was not until late afternoon that the blaze was began to come under control" remains! Mark83 (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Should be fixed now. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Sources look very comprehensive and reliable. A few mainly minor points on presentation:-
 * Citations
 * No. 1: Details should be given of "Roberts", and "Option Reports" should be (see also 22)
 * No. 5: For consistency, full stop after "pp" Also 239
 * No. 23: Who is being quoted? Why not refer to the source?
 * No. 27: Who is Ian Constantinides? What work is being quoted?
 * No. 40: Who is Giles Downes? What work is being quoted?
 * No. 41 requires pp. not p. Also 44, 48 and others
 * No. 51 should be in standard paging format
 * No. 115: Who is being quoted?
 * Ref 127: For consistency, put year in brackets. Also 129 and possibly others
 * No. 249: Why is this noted as "House of Commons Public Account Committee, p.3"? The linked source is something completely different.
 * Bibliography
 * There is an awkwardness in the formatting of, e.g. "Bold, John and Edward Chaney. (eds) (1993)..." Logically this should be "Bold, John and Chaney, Edward (eds) (1993)..." There are several other similar instances.
 * "Cruickhanks" in bibliography should be "Cruickshanks"
 * Two listings for Hoak in the bibliography. Unnecessary since the book is the same

Oherwise, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Response:


 * No. 1. I've expanded and given the details in Nicolson, but he doesn't give any more than this in terms of publication details (it was an internal report for the royal family and English Heritage, so may not have been formally published).
 * No. 5. Done.
 * No. 23. Sorted.
 * No. 27. Ditto.
 * No. 40. Ditto.
 * No. 41. Think I've caught all of these now.
 * No. 51. Sorted I think.
 * No. 115. Done.
 * Ref 127. Done.
 * No. 249. Sorted.


 * Biblio:
 * Done, second and third authors reversed throughout.
 * Done - Cruickshanks spelt properly now.
 * Hoak: changed, but worth checking I've corrected it the right way!


 * NB: whilst doing reference No. 127, I caught one duplicate reference, so references 127+ are now one lower than before (i.e. No. 249 above is now 248 in the article).


 * Hchc2009 (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. -- Pres N  06:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Leaning to Enthusiastic Support. Fascinating article, very interesting, well-written, and overwhelmingly beautifully illustrated (I can't comment on image copyright stuff). One quibble, though: Could it perhaps be mentioned that Henry VI, who was called Henry of Windsor for his birth there, resided there quite often, and was reburied in the chapel by Richard III in 1484 (it was then when his cult as a saint developed greatly). Edward IV also lies buried in the chapel which was built in a sense for that purpose, not only his grandson Henry VIII. I am also wondering what A. L. Rowse is doing with dates (years), I had to correct two quite strange examples in the 15th/16th century sections alone. Buchraeumer (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the second one may have been the result of having the social unrest (as opposed to proper rebellion) of 1548 on the brain and getting the sentence phrasing wrong - my fault rather than Rowse. First one seems to be my typo.
 * I've added a bit on the movement of the body, using Miri Rubin as a reference. I've also added in a bit about Edward IV's burial place (I don't think he's in the same vault as the others, but his tomb is certainly in the chapel).
 * Hchc2009 (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I added that "Henry of Windsor" was born there myself. (Edward IV's grave is directly opposite Henry VI's). Buchraeumer (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per my comments on Malleus Fatuorum's talk page, and the article's talk page. This is a phenomenal piece of work, beautifully illustrated and comfortably satisfying the criteria than an article must be comprehensive and well-researched. The prose is generally up there and a copy edit has helped. Nev1 (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - I've watched this article grow and am pleased to say it is now at an outstanding level Spiderone  14:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * "The castle's design reflects a feature common to almost all the periods of Windsor architecture; new building work has attempted to produce a contemporary reinterpretation of older fashions and traditions, repeatedly imitating outmoded or even antiquated styles." - what is "a feature"? Maybe rephrase to plural.
 * No decent pic of the motte - one would fit here, or opposite the table of contents where there is a big white gap.
 * "The buildings in the Upper Ward are characterised by the use of small bits of flint in the mortar, a technique originally started at the castle in the 17th century to give stonework from disparate periods a similar appearance." There's a word for this & maybe a link. It may come to me, or anyone?
 * Generally, more dates needed for decorative schemes.
 * "Different rooms follow the Classical, Gothic and Rococo styles" - links needed. Do we mean Neoclassical and Gothic Revival? Rococo link just below shd be moved here.
 * "Investigations after the 1992 fire have shown though that many Rococo features of the modern castle are 19th-century plasterwork and wood fakes, designed to blend with the original articles". Don't quite understand this. Is any of it genuine Rococo (pre say 1760) - surely not as far as the fixed elements go? "wood fakes" of what, & what "original articles"? Link Carlton House & maybe explain it.
 * "Wyatville's design retains three rooms originally built by Hugh May..." Date needed (others on campaigns of decoration earlier would also be good). How "innovative" was the Baroque fusion? In England maybe; should perhaps be restricted as old hat on the continent.
 * "The "beautifully vaulted" 14th-century Larderie passage runs alongside the Kitchen Courtyard is decorated with carved royal roses, marking its construction by Edward III" - grammar. OK, I added "and".
 * "Other cloisters originally built by Edward III sit alongside the Horseshoe, ..." a bit awkward, especially as a cloister is really supposed to be an enclosed rectangle (normally). No sign of any such on the map. "Ranges" might be better.
 * "in the fashion of Eugène Viollet-le-Duc's Carcassonne" - needs something inserting. As I'm sure you know Carcassonne is a medieval city given a heavy going over by VlD, especially the walls. This makes it sound like a new house or something. His "recreation of" maybe?
 * "John used the castle as his base before proceeding to sign the Magna Carta at nearby Runnymede in 1215" - italicized words a bit awkward. "in the negotiations that led to him signing.." perhaps.
 * "...nearby Eton College, under the previous instructions of Henry VI." Awkward.
 * "This flow of foreign visitors and vibrant court life was captured for the queen's entertainment in William Shakespeare's play, The Merry Wives of Windsor.[137" - rather dubious Rowseiana. I haven't seen the play for decades, but as I recall it (like the Verdi opera) covers bourgeois life in what could be any town, with little reference to court life.
 * "French court etiquette at the time required a substantial number of rooms in order to satisfy court protocol;" ideally work in Enfilade (architecture) which is what this is about.
 * "George I took little interest in Windsor Castle, preferring St James, Hampton Court, Kensington Palace and Richmond Palace". Links and phrasing. Hampton Court is a place, Hampton Court Palace the building, & so on. Why Kensington Palace but not the rest?
 * I disagree with Johnbod about this. Everyone calls the palace "Hampton Court" tout court. But pray be careful about the apostrophe s in "St James's" – indispensable. Tim riley (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No they don't, especially locally. But it should at least be given in full at the first mention, which isn't here. A phrasing like: "preferring his other palaces at St James, Hampton Court, Kensington and Richmond" with links for new mentions avoids all difficulties. But I see Richmond Palace was destroyed under the Commonwealth, so presumably should be removed. Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "wealthy visitors who could afford to pay the castle keeper could enter," - surely "wealth" not needed; these charges were pretty reasonable for the well-to-do?
 * " Indeed, it has been argued that Windsor reached social peak during the Victorian era, seeing the introduction of invitations to numerous prominent figures to "dine and sleep" at the castle at key events." - grammar, but "social peak" is a bit awkward. How or what were the "events" "key"? In fact too many "events" over the next sentences.
 * "becoming known as the "Widow of Windsor" after a famous poem by Rudyard Kipling" - what exactly does the reference say? It's hard to believe the phrase originated with RK frankly, as opposed to being picked up by him. Prince Albert had already been dead 5 years when he was born.
 * "George III's Diary rebuilt in a Renaissance style in 1859; " tee-hee
 * "spotlights being used in the work set fire to an altar curtain.." Is altar curtain the right term? These have been rare since the Middle Ages. Just a "hanging"?
 * Since the notes are quite long, they would be better at normal size. The refs would be better in 2 if not 3 columns.

In general a fine piece. I've made a number of minor edits, and added a little bit on the Royal Collection; more could be added here. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll work through these - cheers!
 * "feature" - I've tried a possible rewording.
 * Ok clearer, but why not just "For several centuries architecture at the castle has attempted to produce a contemporary reinterpretation of older fashions and traditions, repeatedly imitating outmoded or even antiquated styles" - one doubts this was much of a concern in the Middle Ages. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the wording! I've gone for "since the 14th century", as the Edward III rebuild is the first to do this (immitating the late 13th century work of his grandfather, albeit with big windows added in!)Hchc2009 (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "flint in the stonework" - "galletting". I've added a link.
 * Ah, I knew it was something to do with Breton food, but was thinking mussels! Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Links to architectural terms done.
 * Ok.
 * I've had a go at clarifying the fake Rococo pieces. What I'm trying to describe is that the lower half of some of the rooms' walls and carvings are original, 1760s, 18th century pieces from France, Carlton House (and before that France) etc. which were purchased and brought to install in the castle Above those original works though you get plaster work and wood fakes - the rooms at Windsor were too big to get originals to fit properly!
 * How about: "Investigations after the 1992 fire have shown though that many Rococo features of the modern castle, originally thought to have been 18th century fittings transferred from Carlton House or France, are in fact 19th-century imitations in plasterwork and wood, designed to blend with original elements" or something. One might specify boiseries etc, which is presumably what we're talking about. "Fakes" is rather harsh, imo! Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone with that wording. They're very good imitations, I must say! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Baroque fusion" - I'm not sure; there were clearly Baroque designs on the continent, I don't know if there were similar attempts to combine the three arts on the continent at that point though. I've added "English" - see if that works!
 * Ok, or "show a "baroque fusion", innovative for England, of the hitherto ..."
 * "cloisters" sorted as you suggested
 * "Carcassonne" sorted. You're right, it did have that "darling, I decided to do some DIY this morning, I remodelled the city of Carcassonne" tone to it!
 * John - changes made to try and sort the flow.
 * Eton college - changes made to clarify.
 * "wealthy" - I think the original source stressed that it was slightly expensive at the time. I've gone for "wealthier" to soften the language slightly.
 * Victoria - "dine and sleep" sorted.
 * "diary" sorted. Still, it was a very nice Georgian diary, with neoclassical pages and a marble cover! :)
 * "altar curtains". I'm not sure. I've seen a picture of them (before they caught fire!), and they came down on either side of the altar so as to allow it to be veiled from the rest of the room. They were very tall, 19ft tall in fact. The source refers to them as "the curtains in front of the altar", "the curtains in the altar", etc., though, not strictly speaking as an "altar curtain". Edward Blore designed it, so it might be that he had a medieval model in mind though. Either way, I've tweaked the text, keeping "curtain" in, but avoiding suggesting that these are identical to the medieval version.
 * Ok, that's an altar curtain alright. No need to adjust. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have a go at the architectural dates and palaces in a moment. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merry Wives; I've added an explanatory note see if you think it explains enough.
 * Hmmm. I'd still say "town life" rather than "court life" - or something. It is actually unusual among Shakespeare's non-Roman plays in having no scenes set in a court, as far as I recall. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed a bit - should work now.Hchc2009 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Kipling - you're right, it was in circulation before, but was popularised by Kipling. Apparently the Queen was unamused, and snubbed him as a consequence of the poem! I've tweaked the language. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Picture of the motte found and added in.
 * References now in three columns. I'm not actually sure how to alter the size of the note font though. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Still shows in single column to me. I don't understand those templates either. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bizarre. Looks like three columns on this system. Ditto! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Palaces bit sorted. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All ok if not commented on. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's all of them now, if you're happy with the last set of changes. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bonus point: There are places where it could be clarified how much remains of particular decorative schems, especially the Charles II Baroque one. Is any of that left? Johnbod (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've got that in the architecture section; I've added the 17th century date in as well to make it clearer though.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Comments above sufficiently dealt with (I still see only one column of refs though). A very nice piece of work. Johnbod (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Tim riley (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * "Wyattville" or "Wyatville"? – Both spellings are used in the article.
 * "beseiged" should be "besieged", surely?
 * "drafty" – a new one on me. I see that the OED defines it as an obsolete word meaning "Of the nature of refuse or garbage; rubbishy, worthless; filthy, vile." I think perhaps you mean "draughty".
 * Ah. He did use both versions. The wiki page is under Wyattville with two "t"s though. I'll adjust so that the article is consistent with the version used on the main wiki page.
 * Beseiged fixed.
 * "Draughty" was what I had in mind!

Hchc2009 (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Image query File:Carved_unicorn212334.jpg is presumably taken under freedom of panorama, which is allowed if the subject is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public, can the permanence and location of this sculpture be verified? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whilst I didn't take the photo itself, the carving is a permanent installation in St George's Hall, one of the parts of the castle open to the public. For a (non-free) picture of it in situ, Flickr has a picture here; it's the middle statue on the pillar. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can this be tagged onto the image page that it is freedom of panorama and that it is in public place on permanent exhibit, otherwise WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added it on. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * FA Criterion 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment This is a nice article, but at 104 kb is rather long. I would consider breaking out the history section into a separate article. Note that this is just a comment, not an oppose. Warren Dew (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's 104kb of raw wikitext though, there's around 10,100 words of prose which sounds reasonable given the long and eventful history Windoer has. Nev1 (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Leaning support with nitpicks:
 * A bit of overlinking - link terms only on first appearance in article text
 * In an article this long, per WP:REPEATLINK 2nd links are permitted, indeed to be encouraged. That's not to say there may not be some unnecessary repeats here. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy to remove any thought excessive. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "originally thought to have been 18th century fittings...are in fact 19th-century imitations" - why is one century hyphenated and one not? Check for this type of inconsistency throughout
 * Fixed.Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "The Grand Reception Room..., occupying the site of Edward III's great hall, 100 ft (30 m) long and 40 ft (12 m) tall" - phrasing
 * Fixed.Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "The White, Green and Crimson Drawing Rooms include sixty-two trophies" - each or total?
 * Total, and fixed.Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Dab links to Chelsea and Neoclassical
 * Fixed.Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Be more consistent in capitalization - for example, "the chapel" or "the Chapel"? When are you using "the king" versus "the King"?
 * Hopefully all fixed.Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "This damage was immediately repaired" - what damage? The previous paragraph discusses a siege, but does not mention damage being done to the castle
 * Adjusted. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "between 1224–30" and similar - grammar
 * Fixed by another editor (thanks!). Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Edward abandoned the new order...instead established the new Order of the Garter" - repetitive
 * Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Edward spent £51,000 on renovating Windsor Castle" - do we have any idea what this would be in modern terms?
 * Best avoided - far too long ago. See talk page discussion not so long ago - Fifelfoo's Law etc. A % of royal annual income would be the way, if we had the figure. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The very next sentence is "this was the largest amount spent by any English medieval monarch on a single building operation, and over one and a half times Edward's typical annual income of £30,000". Nev1 (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't look at the text again (obviously)! That's exactly right then. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "including one with the King of Denmark that became infamous across Europe" - okay, why?
 * I've tried to find a polite way of putting it and added it to the text. Basically they got horribly, horribly drunk together during the visit; pictures were drawn of them both in embarrassing, rather unseemly positions and printed off around Europe. An early "drunken pictures of crowned heads of Europe posted on Facebook" episode essentially! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What is "Ascot Week"?
 * Linked. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Colvin, p.392, cited Brown, p.230" - which Brown?
 * Sorted. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Identical references should be combined (for example, current refs 27 and 28)
 * Hopefully all caught now.Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Why do you specify a date for Bickham in References?
 * I've removed it. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "House of Commons Public Account Committee" or "House of Commons Public Accounts Committee"?
 * Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in using U.K. versus UK
 * Hopefully all caught.Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * When citing a work within another work, be consistent in including or not including the date of the larger work - for example, "in Cruickshanks (ed) 2009" versus "in Bold and Chaney (eds)". Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully all caught now.
 * Many thanks, Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheers! Will run through these later today.Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Fine article; meets all the criteria. DrKiernan (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Notes: has anyone done a WP:V, close paraphrasing check? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review for page number consistency: pp.27–28 but pp.52–3.
 * Multiple occurrences of "Today", see WP:MOSDATE.


 * Page number sorted.
 * A cull of "today"s has been conducted! :)
 * Hchc2009 (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! There's still a section heading "Today"-- any reason that can't be 21st century?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Done! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:V
 * Earwig's tool turned up a couple of fairly obvious mirrors, CorenSearchBot found no violations.
 * Most of the first paragraph of Park and landscape is not supported by the given source
 * "The earliest mechanical, weight-driven clock in England was installed by Edward III in the Round Tower in 1354" vs "Edward III placed the earliest mechanical, weight-driven clock in England in 1354" - paraphrasing is a bit close
 * I've done some spotchecking of available references, but don't have access to many of the print sources
 * Incidentally, a couple of the GBooks links seem to go to the wrong book. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Cantor as a source is good for the sentence immediately preceding the citation, but I'll have to find an alternative for the couple of sentences before it (which I think came from earlier editors before my rewrite - they're definitely true, but will need their own references). Will sort first thing tomorrow.
 * I remember struggling with the "earliest mechanical, weight-driven clock" sentence originally, because the clock term is so specific. I'm happy to rephrase it as a direct quote if that would get us around the paraphrasing challenge?
 * Will double check the Gbook links! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've searched out some more references for the other preceeding sentences and added them.
 * I've gone for a direct quote on the clock.
 * I've clicked through on the GBooks links, and they're all looking okay to me. I'm probably missing something though! Which links do you think are miss-linking?
 * Hchc2009 (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like that quote. I suggest changing it to earliest weight-driven mechanical clock, which avoids the need for a comma, and uses a specific technical term that cannot be copyrighted or easily changed since other mechanical clocks are pendulum-driven or spring-driven. It's not so easy to use any other five words to describe that object, unless you use an unnecessary and cumbersome synonym like "timepiece". There's no infringement when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing. DrKiernan (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed as per your suggestion. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the one I noticed; it's the link given for the Bickham, and while the title is similar it doesn't seem to be the same book. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, found it. Yes, I'd got the Pote and the Bickham volumes mixed up. Should be sorted now. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.