Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Castles in Greater Manchester

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 22:04, 1 April 2008.

Castles in Greater Manchester edit

I believe this list satisfies all the FL criteria. Thanks in advance for any comments. Nev1 (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah
  • Oppose It's good to see those castles in separate sections, but they're short. Dunham Castle, Rochdale Castle, and Ullerwood Castle sections are too short. If there is no info to expand them further, then it will be better if a table is used instead.--Crzycheetah 23:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I proposed this article for FL I was aware that it might get opposed because some of the sections are admittedly short, however several have since been expanded although I admit that Ullerwood Castle still poses a problem. I disagree that a table would be more appropriate than the current prose format, but perhaps you would care to to explain why you think a table is better in this instance. Nev1 (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sections still remain short. Having a table is better than short sections. As I already said above, if there is no information available to expand those sections, then a table would be better. If you could expand those sections, then a table is not necessary. I hope it's clear enough for you.--Crzycheetah 22:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perfectly clear, I'm just not convinced that you're right; even with some short sections, I don't think a table would be better. I think the reader would be better served by the article's current form rather than a table which may miss out some information; not everything here can be easily tabulated. Nev1 (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • All right, if you don't want a table, forget it. It was just a suggestion anyway.--Crzycheetah 02:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It actually wouldn't be as troublesome as you might think. Here's something I knocked up in only five minutes (which explains the basicness of it).
              • I'm beginning to be convinced that a table might work, I'll get started on tabulating it and see how it works. Nev1 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've implemented the table, looks like I was wrong it can be made to work without losing information. Sadly I couldn't find room for one image, any ideas how or if it could be incorporated? Nev1 (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

  • What is a "motte-and-bailey"? I know it's linked, but a short description wouldn't hurt. Also, though you say a ringwork is essentially just a "bailey", more of a description here would be good too.
    • A brief description has been included in the lead. Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four motte-and-baileys" → "Four are motte-and-baileys"
  • "It is unclear what form Manchester and Ullerwood Castles were constructed in, although from their date motte-and-bailey is most likely." Needs citation
    • Richerman found a source saying Manchester Castle was a fortified manor house, a reference has been added regarding Ullerwood. Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it "Scheduled ancient monuments", when it links to "Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester" (in the lead)? Also, what is a scheduled monument?
  • Does reference 5 in the lead reference the fact that they were all motte-and-baileys, or the second half of the sentence regarding the speed and ease these types can be erected?
    • It refers to the speed with which they could be built. Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is the baron referring to in "the baron's rebellion against Henry II"?
    • Sorry, my bad grammar. It should have been "barons' rebellion". A wiki link has been added to the lead to further explain it. Nev1 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can Hamon de Massey, Geoffrey de Constentyn, William de Neville, Sir Thomas Pilkington be wikilinked?
  • "notably the unusual ringwork of Buckton Castle" If it's notable, there should be a reference. And without it, "unusual" is WP:POV
    • Ok, this has been removed, it was a bit pointless anyway. Nev1 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the grid reference for Buckton castle there's a big gap before the closing parentheses, though this may be a Wikipedia issue
    • I've moved the ref that applies for clarity. Nev1 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference needed for "It was constructed with a stone wall, surrounded by a ditch 10 metres (33 ft) wide and 6 metres (20 ft) deep and covers an area of 1,250 square metres (0.31 acres)."
  • is "razed" spelled correctly?
    • Yes, as in "razed to the ground". Nev1 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scheduled ancient monument" again links to Scheduled Monument, and only needs linking one time.
    • Removed overlinking. Nev1 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dunham Castle, Manchester Castle, Rochdale Castle, Stockport Castle, and Ullerwood Castle especially, all need expanding.
    • These have been expanded somewhat, although the biggest problem is Ullerwood, for which there seems to be a derth of information. Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also dislike the use of the conjectures "probably", "could be" "maybe" etc. Unless that's what the references say, and then I could possibly accept it.
    • I'm no fan of uncertainty either, but that seems to be the way it is with castles. Such conditions are used in the sources. Nev1 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now, but I'll be happy to look over it again once these are addressed. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More

  • For an article on castles in Greater Manchester, I'm surprised Manchester Castle has no article. It strikes me as absolutely odd to have that one as a red link.
  • "Ringworks were essentially just baileys." sounds colloquial
    • Rewritten, it's definately more technical now. Nev1 (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section for Ullerwood Castle is still small. There's more on its article page ;)
    • A bit more, I've mentioned the confusion with Watch Hill. Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the section for Ullerwood Castle is so small, move "It is unclear what form of castle Ullerwood was, although from its date and link with the castles of Dunham and Watch Hill, a motte-and-bailey is most likely.[5]" from the lead to that section.
  • From that, what links with those castles?
    • No longer important (see previous point). But for the record it's that they were built for the same person at the same time, that should have been mentioned. Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider moving the grid references for each castle from the middle of a sentence to immediately following the name of the castle
  • Does Ullerwood Castle still belong to Hamon de Massey?
  • Remove the over-linking of motte-and-bailey, motte, ringwork etc as they're all linked to in the Lead
  • "tower or keep" → "keep or tower"
  • "The castle is first referred to in 1360, by which time it was ruinous.[16] It is a Scheduled Ancient Monument.[12] The site has been damaged by 18th-century treasure hunters." are fragmented sentences.
    • Rewritten slightly, hopefully sorted. Nev1 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So too is "The castle may have replaced an earlier house on the site, surrounded by a moat.[19] Bury Castle was razed to the ground after the Wars of the Roses."
    • Reorganised, it should have a better flow now. Nev1 (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check each section for stubby sentences. There seems to be a lot.
    • Some have been expanded or merged, does more need to be done? Nev1 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The castle was probably a motte and may not have had a bailey." needs a cite.
    • Done, I moved the reference to the appropriate place. Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ringworks are an uncommon form of fortification – though contemporary with motte-and-baileys – a ringwork may have been built rather than a motte-and-bailey because the soil was too thin to provide a proper motte.[14]" Should probably be moved to the Lead section, as it describes more than just Buckton Castle.
    • Moved to lead as suggested. Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "The castle was probably a motte", the I would change, "The motte is 24 metres (79 ft) in diameter" to "the castle is 24 meters..."
  • Check for past and present tense usage in all sections, for example: "Dunham Castle is", "The castle was probably a motte", "The motte is 24 metres (79 ft) in diameter"
    • The changes in tense make my head spin, it should be better now, but I can't guarantee it's perfect. Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Manchester Castle was first referred to in 1184 and is a fortified manor house;" Reference for date is needed

That's all for this round. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 00:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more

  • "It was protected as a Scheduled Ancient Monument, but was delisted" uses too many "was"es. It sounds a little better as, "It was protected as a Scheduled Ancient Monument, but subsequently delisted", but have a play around.
    • I've had a go 'It used to be protected as a Scheduled Ancient Monument, but was delisted as it may be a "natural hummock of glacial sand".' Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref [23] for Dunham suggests it could simply be a natural mound of glacial sand, and not a castle. I think this disambiguity needs to be mentioned.
  • If any other references suggest any other sites may be something else completely, I would note that too.
    • I've double checked, and this doesn't apply to any of the other castles mentioned. Nev1 (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Location Type Earliest known date Scheduled Monument Notes
Buckton Castle Buckton Hill, Carbrook
grid reference SD98920162 		Ringwork 1360 Yes Constructed with a stone wall, surrounded by a ditch 10 metres (33 ft) wide and 6 metres (20 ft) deep and covers an area of 1,250 square metres (0.31 acres).
Dunham Dunham Massey
grid reference SJ73428742 		Motte 1173 No 24 metres (79 ft) in diameter and survives 2 metres (6.6 ft) in height. The castle was still standing in 1323 and fell into disuse between than and 1362. Was protected as a Scheduled Ancient Monument, but subsequently delisted.

Greatly improved but as Crzycheetah said, with the lack of information it still lends itself to a table format. Just waiting on other reviewers' comments to see if they catch anything major that I missed and how they're handled before I support or oppose. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:01, 28 March, 2008

I don't think there's anything more to do to this, now. Therefore I support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support I really like it now. There two nitpicks, though. First, I think there should be a section heading for the table. Second, there are one (or two) reference(s) used in each row, maybe just one (or two) footnote(s) is enough? The list itself looks great!--Crzycheetah 02:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks really good. I only have one suggestions: an external links section of some sort would be nice. Other than that, great work! Drewcifer (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Castles_in_Greater_Manchester&oldid=1143873296"