Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/York Castle


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

York Castle

 * Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I would ultimately like to take the article to FA review. It has passed at Good Article status, but could do with some further attention from the community before going up to the next level. York Castle is a famous site, and the castle has a long history. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Watch for terminal periods in the citations "McLynn, pp.120–1" they're your style, so make sure you're consistent.
 * Double check for p/pp being correct, "Cooper, p.196, 200."
 * Check your web citations for authors, publishers, last updated, works contained in greater works etc...
 * Standard inflation grumbles, use your own judgement and refer to MILHIST project talk, you seem to be well aware of the issues though. You can improve the MeasuringWorth citation with author, correct title, etc.  Their website indicates how to cite.
 * IIRC OCLCs are template linkable? Fifelfoo (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Terminal periods - hopefully all caught now.
 * p/pp hopefully now correct.
 * Agree about inflation - will change.
 * More to follow.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Inflation material sorted; I've gone for the "equivalent" income figures I've used elsewhere.
 * Web citations checked, should be in better shape.
 * Can anyone point me in the direction of the OCLC template? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've added it in for you. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I've asked over at WT:MHC if I can start doing my copyediting in the last 24 hours of the A-class review, so that the article hasn't changed too much and is still fresh in my mind when I review it for FAC. If folks go along with that, then I'll have a look at this one when it gets listed there for closing. - Dank (push to talk) 19:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Comments:
 * according to the tools there is one dab link, but I don't believe that this can be fixed (no action required);
 * ext links work (no action required);
 * you might consider adding alt text, but it is not a requirement:
 * in the 13th and 14th centuries section, "the southeastern lobe cracked" (I think this should be "south-eastern", but I might be wrong - I'm using the Macquarie dictionary which is Australian English, so please check a British English dictionary);
 * in the 17th century section, "Meanwhile, the garrison and the castle had became extremely unpopular" ("became" should be "become", or "had" should be removed);
 * in the 18th century seciton, "built between 1701–5 by William Wakefield" (probably should just be "built between 1701 and 1705 by William Wakefield");
 * in the 19th and 20th centuries section, I think there is a typo here: "causing a reccurence of the 14th century subsidence" ("reccurence" should be "recurrence");
 * in the References, # 37 there is an out of place full stop here: "Brown, p.86.;" (after 86, should just be a semi colon);
 * in the References, # 84 should have an endash for the page range for consistency. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Changes made as suggested - many thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Between" followed by dates requires "and" (not a dash) per MOS, Chicago and Garner's. - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dank - and, as always, gratefully appreciated. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to know it's working, be sure to tell me if it's not. - Dank (push to talk)


 * "The work was carried out between 1245–70, and included the construction of a towered curtain wall; three gatehouses, one of considerable size with two large towers; a smaller watergate and a small gateway into the city; a chapel; and a new stone keep, first known as the King's, later Clifford's, Tower.": I changed it to: "The work was carried out between 1245 and 1270, and included the construction of a towered curtain wall, a gatehouse of considerable size with two large towers, two smaller gatehouses, a small watergate, a small gateway into the city, a chapel, and a new stone keep, first known as the King's, later Clifford's,  Tower."  It may require some poking and prodding, but generally, make the attempt to use commas rather than semicolons in a series, as long as it doesn't impede clarity. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "by reducing dead ground visible from the summit of the keep.": Does this mean "by making more ground visible from the summit of the keep."? - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's a positive way of describing it. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "local prisoners": probably should be changed to "the prisoners", unless this is referring to prisoners from additional jails.
 * That's fair. The prisoners were sadly right next to the machinery, but I think that's superfluous detail! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "The King's Pool that formed part of the castle's water defences was drained and built on.": Doesn't quite work, since you can't build on something that's not there. Do you know what was built on the site? - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Housing, I think; I was envisaging that they'd built on the bottom of the pool once they'd drained it, I suppose.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "a grant of £3,000 (£242,000)": ? - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarified now in the text.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "installed concrete underpinnings to compensate and stabilise the structure beneath the gatehouse.": nonparallel. One easy fix if you like would be to remove "compensate and". - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed as per your suggestion.Hchc2009 (talk)


 * I don't know what a "security situation" is. "Situation" is often taken in good writing as a flag that the writer didn't know what they wanted to say; best to avoid it if you can. - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Ping me when you have a chance to look at these, please, I'll stop watchlisting. - Dank (push to talk) 03:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed the above the other day! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * All that's left is "security situation". - Dank (push to talk) 12:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just changed it - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I have undone this edit as although it is a small change it changed the meaning of the sentence. In the sentence "The prison ... was built entirely of stone in order to be both secure and fireproof." it is the keep that is secure and fireproof by virtue of being stone. The change to "The prison, considered to be the strongest such building in England, was built entirely of highly secure and fireproof stone." meant that the stone was fireproof and secure but not necessarily the keep itself. Nev1 (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, but some FAC reviewers will object to that "in order to" ... and leaving aside the contentious arguments about it at FAC, it is true that more often than not, when I see "in order to", it's a flag that the sentence would be better if it were shorter, for one reason or another. How about this? "Secure and fireproof, the prison ... was built entirely of stone." - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with the sentence as it stands TBH, but at times my own writing can run on a bit so may not be the best judge. Perhaps it just needs splitting. Something like "To ensure it was fireproof and secure, the prison was built entirely of stone. It was considered the strongest building of its type in England"? But now it's been split, I like the way the tidbit about it being considered the strongest prison was integrated so it didn't sound like a random throw-away factoid. How about something like "To ensure it was bot fireproof and secure, the prison, considered to be the strongest such building in England, was built entirely of stone"? Or, my preferred option, how about just ditching "in order" (and perhaps "such building")? Nev1 (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I rather like: "To ensure it was both fireproof and secure, the prison, considered to be the strongest such building in England, was built entirely of stone" - it captures the sense of the original writers well, who were clearly impressed by the fireproof bit and by the general strength of the design! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Support as the GAN reviewer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.