Wikipedia:Peer review/Warwick Castle/archive1

===Warwick Castle===


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I've essentially run out of ideas to improve it. I'd like to take the article to WP:FAC but would like it to be checked over by a fresh pair of eyes first. I know the lead needs expanding (I've barely touched it since I started the rewrite a few weeks ago). All ideas are welcome and I'd like to thank contributors in advance. :-) Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Warwick Castle/archive1.

Sephiroth BCR
Commenting here per the mutual exchange Kirill set up between the MILHIST and VG projects. The lead probably needs expanding to summarize the material in the article (i.e. state who built the castle then move into its current state). The first sentence is also awkward. Perhaps something along the lines of "Warwick Castle is a 10th century (?) castle located in Warwick, the county town of Warwickshire, England, and adjacent to the River Avon." I also note that "castle" is never wikilinked in the lead. My $0.02. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 06:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead has been greatly expanded and the first sentence has been rewritten. Thanks for your input. Nev1 (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Jappalang
Based on this version, I offer the following comments and suggestions.


 * It is redundant to have the coordinates in the top right (and unsightly in overlapping with the breakline) when the infobox has the information.


 * The sentence flow can be improved... In certain sections of the article, I feel like reading "Here's the good ole tower, which was built by the baron and used for military purposes especially defending against the Cheeses in 1569 and in 1671, there was a raid by... oh, here's the baron little pookie wookums made in 1869. Then the Picts started flooding in by 1714, with the castle still being stacked with cannons..."


 * A few places (not many) require commas.

Lead
 * It is too brief for an article of this size; it failed to cover the important aspects and a bit lacking in the "ooo, this is interesting" factor.


 * I would suggest:
 * expanding on the earldom. Pick a few of the most notable (Neville the Kingmaker for example) as the examples "such as ... ... ..."
 * listing out notable events that occured on the castle grounds
 * including a bit on the hauntings. Yes, it might be kitsch, but I feel the reputation of it being haunted is an important feature of an old castle.


 * The "tens of thousands of tourists" figure should be quoted. Why is it not mentioned in the main text?


 * "Scheduled Ancient Monument" and "Grade I listed building" should also be mentioned in main text.


 * "Along with the castle's boundary walls, stables, conservatory, mill and lodge, Warwick Castle is a Grade I listed building; all these buildings are listed together."
 * An awkward sentence.


 * The lead has been greatly expanded, removing the unsourced statement (couldn't find a source) and reworking the awkward sentence. The Scheduled Ancient Monument and Listed Building status has also been mentioned in the main body of the article. Nev1 (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Location
 * "Warwick Castle is situated on a sandstone bluff in a bend of the River Avon, a naturally defensible site." → "Warwick Castle is situated on a sandstone bluff in a bend of the River Avon; the geography of this location grants the castle defenders advantages against attackers."


 * "has eroded the rock the castle stands on to create a cliff." → "has eroded the rock the castle stands on into a cliff."


 * "for the new castle" → "for the castle"


 * "Its position was originally strategically important to safeguard the Midlands against rebellion" → "Its position made the castle strategically important in safeguarding the Midlands against rebellion."


 * "Kenilworth Castle, rebuilt in stone in the 12th century, is located about 5 miles (8.0 km) north of Warwick Castle."
 * What is the point of this sentence? It seems to be just thrown in based on the geographical proximity.  Is there anything noteworthy about Kenilworth (with appropriate context, e.g. historical or military significance ) to place here?


 * "modern Britain's"
 * Can this be rephrased? Per WP:DATED, it is possible that 50 years later, the article might still exist but Britain's transportation center has shifted (however, impractical that seems).


 * All issues addressed apart from the first one; I like the phrase "naturally defensible" and I think what it means is clear enough, but I could be persuaded otherwise. An explanation of why Kenilworth Castle is important has been added; it was built by a rival of the earl of Warwick. Nev1 (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I tweaked the statements on Kenilworth Castle for better flow. Please check it over for any unintentional changes to context, content, or references.  Feel free to revert it if I had made it worse.  Jappalang (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

History Before the castle
 * "This almost certainly replaced"
 * It is addressing the wrong subject; a legend (story) cannot replace fortifications. The phrase "almost certainly" is weasel-ish.


 * "This almost certainly replaced older wooden fortifications which had proven ineffective against marauding Danes who sacked the town during the reign of her father. This fortification was part of a network built to protect the Kingdom of Wessex." → "During Alfred's reign, wooden fortifications proved to be ineffective in defending against marauding Danes. Ethelfleda's plan to protect the Kingdom of Wessex involved upgrading {replacing} the wooden works at Warwick {with stone fortifications}."


 * Can Ethelfleda' Mound be brought into this section?


 * All points addressed, the first two by generally reworking and adding to the section. There is a clarification of what the pre-Norman fortification was and its importance. Also mentioned Ethelfleda's Mound and the popular fallacy that it is Anglo-Saxon. Nev1 (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Birth of a castle
 * I do not find the sub-section title appropriate as the sub-section deals with more than just the creation of the castle. Can a better title be had for it?


 * Since the accompanying picture mentioned the motte-and-bailey as constructed on Ethelfleda' Mound, can anything be expounded on this?


 * "In 1153, the wife of Roger de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Warwick was tricked into surrendering control of the castle to the invading army of Henry of Anjou, later King Henry II, who fooled her into believing her husband was dead." → "In 1153, the wife of Roger de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Warwick was tricked into thinking her husband was dead and surrendering control of the castle to the invading army of Henry of Anjou, later King Henry II."


 * "The last in the line of Beauchamps, Anne de Beauchamp, died in 1449 aged five. The earldom passed to Richard Neville through his wife and he became the 16th Earl of Warwick."
 * Please rephrase. In the Anne de Beauchamp and Richard Neville article, they specifically state the title passed to Richard through the young girl's aunt (also Anne de Beauchamp).  The sentence in the Warwick Castle article seems to imply Richard inherited the castle through a 5-year old wife...


 * "500 loads of stone"
 * How much stone is that?


 * "A timber building was erected for her to stay in, during her while and Ambrose Dudley, 3rd Earl of Warwick, left the castle during the Queen's visits."


 * Points addressed: section retitled, copy edits done. As for how much is 500 loads of stone? Um, a lot. That's all the source says, I could remove it if it doesn't seem of any worth. Nev1 (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added some words to connect Edward's imprisonment and his subsequent battle with Neville; otherwise, it might seem strange for Neville to be battling the imprisoned king... As your sources never specified the specific weight, I think it is fine to just go along with just "500 loads of stone" (I presume the medieval "load" depends on the ruling lord's definition).  Jappalang (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A country house
 * "his manservant: Ralph Haywood"
 * Why is a colon used here?
 * Struck off. Colons can be used to connect two independent clauses when the second explains the first. More appropriately, the colon can be used to introduce a word, phrase, or clause that adds emphasis to the main part of the preceding sentence. (Goof-Proof Grammar by Felice Primeau Devine. p. 15)  I have restored the colon.  Jappalang (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Parlimentarian generalWilliam Dugdale" → "Parlimentarian General William Dugdale"
 * Watch the spacing and titling...


 * Are the Baron Brookes themselves Earls of Warwick? Were there Earls of Warwicks during the lives of the Baron Brookes?  It seems strange that after Ambrose Dudley, Warwick Castle lies in the ownership of the Baron Brookes without context (except as a gift to Sir Francis Greville without explanation on the status of the Earls of Warwick) until George Greville.


 * "Anthony Salvin was responsible for adding restoring the Watergate Tower in 1861–63."
 * "Adding" or "restoring"?


 * "Restoration and reparations which cost £9,651 were subsidised by donations from the public. The work was carried out by Salvin between 1872–1875." → "Restoration and reparations carried out by Salvin during 1872–75 cost £9,651, which were subsidised by donations from the public."


 * I'm not going to fuss over a semi colon :-) Everything else has been sorted out. It was mostly copyediting, although more has been added about the title of Earl of Warwick to explain about the Barons Brooke. It seemed a bit complicated but I hope it's clear now. Nev1 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Modern history
 * "the list included the likes of the" → "the list included the"


 * "Warwick Castle was recognised in 2002 as Britain's best castle by the Good Britain Guide 2003."
 * Either take out "in 2002" or "2003".


 * "Warwick Castle became the home of one of the world's largest working"


 * "one of the world's largest working siege engines", "largest catapult in the world"
 * A catapult is a siege engine. Remove the largest catapult declaration.


 * "In June 2005, Warwick Castle became the home of one of the world's largest working siege engines. The trebuchet, which is the largest catapult in the world, is 18 metres (59 ft) tall, made from over 300 pieces of oak and weighs 22 metric tons (22 LT/24 ST). On 21 August 2006, the trebuchet claimed the record as the most powerful catapult in the world when it sent a projectile weighing 13kg a distance of 249 metres (820 ft) at a speed of 160 miles per hour, beating the previous record of 228 metres (750 ft) held by the Dutch. The machine, which was made in Wiltshire, takes eight men half an hour to load and fire. It is designed to be capable of hurling projectiles distances of up to 300 metres (980 ft) and as high as 25 metres (82 ft) and can fire up to 150kg of ammunition at a time; the counterbalance used to move the arm and send projectiles at great speed was designed to hold 10 metric tons (10 LT/11 ST)." → "In June 2005, Warwick Castle became the home of one of the world's largest working siege engines; the trebuchet is 18 metres (59 ft) tall, made from over 300 pieces of oak and weighs 22 metric tons (22 LT/24 ST). Designed to hurl 150 kg of ammunition up to 300 metres (980 ft) and as high as 25 metres (82 ft), the machine, which was made in Wiltshire, takes eight men half an hour to load and fire. On 21 August 2006, it claimed the record as the most powerful catapult in the world when it threw a 13 kg projectile a distance of 249 metres (820 ft) at a speed of 160 miles per hour, beating the previous record of 228 metres (750 ft) held by the Dutch."


 * "however its ice rink did not freeze over because of the unusually warm weather. 15 tons of ice were shipped in from Grimsby to help get the surroundings cold enough."
 * Was the ice shipped in to help the rink freeze over? If not, mention of the ice rink can be eliminated and the warm weather condition along with the ice shipment can be merged with the ice slide information.


 * "On 9 December 2007, a 72 year old man fell to his death off a 4.5 metres (15 ft) high bridge over the castle moat into undergrowth. The man was identified as George Frederick Townley, from Coventry, and although he had suffered from a heart attack he died in hospital from his head injuries suffered from the fall."
 * Should this be in the article? It is not as if his family is suing the Warwick Castle owners in a landmark case.  Falling from a height is not a "one of a kind" accident, nor is a castle expected to be an absolutely safe place.


 * Merge the last stand-alone sentence into one of the paragraphs.


 * Alterations made per suggestions. I think you're right about the accidental death and I have removed mention. Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Layout
 * "The current castle, built in stone during the reign of King Henry II, is on the same site as the earlier Norman motte-and-bailey castle."
 * Does that mean the castle is built on Ethelfleda's Mound? Is it more correct to say "Part of the current castle is on the same site as..."?


 * "built in stone during the reign of King Henry II" "When Warwick Castle was rebuilt in stone"
 * These seems repetitive across the two paragraphs.


 * Repetition avoided. The bailey is part of the Norman castle, I thought it was clear that the current castle was built generally on this. Could you suggest how to further clarify the situation? Nev1 (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Grounds and parks
 * "The 17th century landscaping included adding spiral paths" → "The 17th century landscaping added spiral paths"


 * "The 17th century landscaping" ... "were landscaped in the early 17th century"
 * Again a sense of repetitive... rearrange the sentences.


 * "Castle Park is located to the south of the castle and was started in 1743. Houses around the perimeter of the park were demolished and the land they stood on incorporated into the park." → "Castle Park is located to the south of the castle. When it was started in 1743, houses around the perimeter of the park were demolished and the land they stood on incorporated into the park."
 * Active phrasing can be taken with the initiator of the park project. "When XXX created the park in 1743, he demolished the houses around the perimeter of his planned park to make way for his park."


 * "In an attempt to make a profit from the park, it was variously leased for grazing, used to grow wheat, and used to hold sheep, all in the late 18th century." → "Attempts to make profits from the park in the late 18th century included leasing it for grazing, growing wheat, and keeping sheep."


 * Why is the water mill in this section and not in layout, or should the two sections be merged? Anyway, it seems a little bit elaborate for a mill... I could summarise it as "A water-powered mill once stood in the castle grounds.  It was destroyed by natural forces and rebuilt several times.  Used as an electricity generator in the early 20th century, it was dismantled in 1940 when Warwick Castle was fitted with mains electricity."


 * Points mostly sorted. The idea behind a section for layout and another for the grounds is they are two different subjects. I am tempted to merge them, although I think the argument for two sections is vaild: that they are dealing with two differing but related subject; for example, a formal park is not mentioned until 1534 so they are two areas of study. Nev1 (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hauntings
 * Maybe add a comment (i.e. not showing up in text) to forestall others adding unverified sightings or attempting to introduce paranormal explanations.
 * That's a good idea, as a preventative I have added the following: I'll keep an eye on the section to make sure there are no unwanted additions. Nev1 (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Gallery
 * Either remove it or cut it down. Wikimedia has image galleries and I believe Wikipedia articles should have pertinent pictures worked into the context.
 * Image:Warwick interior.jpg is an inferior picture to Image:2007-08-26-09095 GreatBritain Warwick.jpg.
 * Image:Guy's Tower 2007.jpg can be readily identified in the above GreatBritain Warwick.
 * Image:Warwick castle horseman.JPG is inferior to Image:Warwickwax.JPG.
 * Image:The Mound 2007.jpg is inferior to Image:WarwickCastle EthelfledasMound02.JPG.
 * Image:Warwick Castle, the east front by Canaletto, 1752.JPG readily identifies elements shown in Image:WarwickCastle MainGate Clocktower CaesarsTower.JPG and Image:Caesar's Tower 2004.jpg.
 * Image:Warwickside.jpg is inferior to Image:Warwick Castle -mist 23o2007.jpg.

A final recommendation is to get a copyeditor to smooth out the sentence flow and correct grammar issues.