Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Pevensey Castle

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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.

Article promoted MilHistBot (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pevensey Castle edit

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk)


I've undertaken a major expansion of this article, which I'm hoping in due course to get up to FA standard. It's now a comprehensive (~6,000 words) overview of the castle's layout and 1,700 year history. I'd be grateful for an A-class review in advance of proceeding to a FA nomination. Prioryman (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holding remark from Hchc2009

Looks great! I'm in the middle of nowhere at the moment, but will review properly next Friday when I get back closer to home (and my collection of castle books...) :) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, some quick thoughts:

  • The wikilinking might need a bit of work. e.g., in the lead: Normans, keep, machine-gun; later bits include silting and land reclamation, ironstone and sandstone, catapults, heavy crossbows, granary, spring, vaulted, ashlar facing-stone, chapel etc.
  • I've done some more, still working through it. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where century is being used as an adjective, I understand it should be expressed as (e.g.) "a 12th-century tower", not "a 12th century tower"
  • The MOS would have the capitalisation of book titles, e.g. "Hastings, Past and Present: With Notices of the Most Remarkable Places in the Neighbourhood." rather than "Hastings, past and present: with notices of the most remarkable places in the neighbourhood." Hchc2009 (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that's how it's rendered in the original title - it's an old book and they apparently didn't follow the same rules of capitalisation that we do now. I did find a couple of other instances where capitalisation was needed, so I've fixed that. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Norman period:

  • It would be worth explaining why the Rape and castle of Pevensey was so important to the Normans (i.e. it controlled the route to Normandy) and that it was used for coastal defence.
  • Strictly speaking, 1068 etc. isn't "Anglo-Norman", but straight Norman.
  • "Henry re-granted Pevensey Castle to Gilbert I de l'Aigle but continued to use it for his own purposes," - was this the King exercising his right to use *any* castle in the event of war, or was it special to Pevensey?
  • I've not found any specific explanation but I would imagine it was his general right, not something special to Pevensey. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The establishment of the first permanent Norman castle at Pevensey" - could be read two ways (that this was the first permanent Norman castle, or that it was the first permanent castle at Pevensey built by the Normans"
    The latter, I think. I've clarified this. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any evidence of the Normans being interested in the symbolic importance of the Roman site? (as at Colchester and elsewhere?)
  • It's been suggested that there was symbolic importance, so I've mentioned this, but no specific evidence as far as I know. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Later medieval use:

  • Definitely worth explaining why Henry II took it back into Crown hands.
  • "Some 'wardens'" - should be double-speech marks I think.
  • "Peter ended the feudal requirement to maintain the palisades ..." I'm not sure (unless I've missed it) that the feudal requirement had been mentioned previously. It would be good to give it its formal name (heckage).
  • Done, and I've added an explanation too. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creighton notes in Castles and Landscapes that the changing coastline around the castle reduced its strategic value by the 13th century, and that by 1288 they were having trouble unloading shipments for the castle. (p.44)
  • I've not got that book but I've found a copy at the British Library, so I'll take a look at it in the next couple of days. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've got hold of the book and added some material from it. Thanks for the suggestion. Prioryman (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking on this review, Hchc2009. Unfortunately I'm in the middle of a house move so have been unable to do much about this review for the last few days. I'll try to make some of the recommended changes next week when I can find somewhere to log on. Prioryman (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, hope the move goes well! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's completed now, though it took a lot longer than I'd expected to get back online! Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pevensey Castle, Sussex: excavations in the Roman fort and medieval keep, 1993–95" - the capitalisation guidelines in the MOS would have this as "Pevensey Castle, Sussex: Excavations in the Roman Fort and Medieval Keep, 1993–95"
  • "Hastings, past and present: with notices of the most remarkable places in the neighbourhood." - ditto, "Hastings, Past and Present: With Notices of the Most Remarkable Places in the Neighbourhood.". NB: Diplock has acquired a capital I in the biblio.
  • There's inconsistency as to whether the volumes have a location and publisher (e.g. "London: Constable") or just publisher (e.g. "Cambridge University Press"). Either is acceptable, but it should be consistently applied.
  • It would be well worth giving the OCLC number for books without an ISBN (the OCLC advanced search machine will do this very easily for you if you google it).
  • "network of ditches and sewers or field drains" - unclear what the "or" is referring to (is it to both ditches and sewers or just sewers?)
  • Worth linking "Saxon shore"?
  • "The castle's defences are considered to be the largest surviving Roman fortification of the period" - in England, or across Europe? Also, you probably don't need the "considered" (if you do, worth saying "considered by who")
  • "which would have adjoined sea or marsh" - "the sea or marshland"?
  • Worth linking ironstone and sandstone, and rampart
  • "The wall originally had a stepped appearance with at least two levels of steps on the interior face, though there is no surviving indication of how the garrison reached the top." - I didn't find this the easiest sentence to read - the "stepped appearance" and "two levels of steps" threw me a bit.
  • "their placement is somewhat unusual." - you could lose "somewhat" here
  • Worth linking gatehouse
  • "or access from a harbour" - do you mean "access from the harbour", since you mentioned one above?
  • Worth linking first use of "bailey"
  • Worth linking chapel.
  • "had an iron door " - just curious, but was this a solid iron door, or an iron-bound door? I'd imagined the latter. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • While the aerial photo is nice, can we get a plan view? Preferably one each for the Roman and medieval configurations?
  • I should be getting an ex-Crown Copyright plan view in the next few days, which shows the different phases of construction. Prioryman (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how about a photo of the excavation revealing the foundations? I've been watching a lot of Time Team and am used to seeing foundations. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I've never seen such a photo in any of the sources I've checked. There are some cross section illustrations in a few sources but of course they are under copyright and I don't think it'd be permissible to produce a derivative image or copy. Prioryman (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm OK without the foundation photo, but what's the status of the plan view?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got the plan view now but it's rather larger than I thought - a bit bigger than A3. I'm going to have to find a way of either scanning it at A3 (which will need an A3 scanner, which I don't have) or reducing it to A4 so that I can scan it myself. Sorting that out is going to take a bit of time, I'm afraid. Prioryman (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found a very nice photo of excavations of a Roman well, public domain from 1908. Would that help illustrate the excavations section or would an image there be too much?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure it's from Pevensey Castle? I've seen no references to a Roman well being found there. A medieval well, yes, but not a Roman one. It wouldn't do any harm to upload it, anyway, so that the rest of us can see it. Prioryman (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • You say that the castle is west of the village, so there is no need to say a few lines later the village is east of the castle.
  • "They are the largest of any surviving contemporary Roman fortification." In Britain or the world? Also I do not understand the qualification contemporary.
  • Anywhere, as far as I understand it. "Contemporary" means contemporaneous with when it was built, i.e. late 3rd century. Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would delete contemporary as superfluous and confusing. Also worth stating in the lead that they are the largest suviving Roman fortifications in the world. (Should not fortifications be plural to agree with 'They'?) Dudley Miles (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworded this bit as "The castle's defences are considered to be the largest surviving Roman fortification of the period." Prioryman (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are likely to have been topped with crenellations; although the remains of crenellations can still be seen, they date only from the medieval period, but probably replaced Roman originals." This is repetitious. Suggest something like "The remains of medieval crenellations can still be seen, and they probably replaced Roman originals."
  • Thanks, that repetition was bothering me too but I couldn't think of an alternative wording. I've used your suggestion. Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Norman inner bailey. I may have missed it, but was this wood or stone?
  • "stationed at what is now Paris" Do you need "what is now". According to the article on Lutetia, it was renamed Paris in 360.
  • Indeed, but it's not clear from the sources whether the named units were located there before or after the renaming. I've covered both bases by changing the wording to "stationed at Lutetia (modern Paris)." Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "William's temporary fortification within the Roman walls was expanded to create a permanent Norman castle at Pevensey, probably during Robert's tenure sometime in the 1070s." Was this the first stone Norman castle? I see there was a timber palisade.
  • I believe Colchester Castle was started earlier, though not finished until 1100. Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I did not make myself clear. I understand (rightly or wrongly) that castles built soon after the Conquest were usually wood, and were later replaced with stone ones. I was asking whether this was the case at Pevensey, and if so when the wood one was replaced. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see. Yes, it was originally wood and replaced with stone. As the "Inner bailey" section says, this took place in the 13th to 14th centuries. Prioryman (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pevensey was confiscated again by the Crown under King Stephen, with Gilbert's family also losing the rest of their possessions." Presumably Gilbert de l'Aigle sided with Matilda, but worth stating.
  • What is a siege castle? A platform for artillery?
  • Not quite. Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't have an article on siege castles - I should probably write one. During the Anarchy, if a castle was besieged, it was not uncommon for a second castle to be constructed by the besiegers a short distance from the first to serve as a base / observation post / artillery platform. In the case of the churches near Pevensey Castle, they would have been used as ready-made siege castles with catapults on top of the towers and soldiers using the buildings as bases. (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need an explanation or note for non-expert readers. I tried googling but could not find anything.Dudley Miles (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've reworded the line as "The parish churches at Pevensey and Westham also suffered damage, which the attackers may have caused in using them as siege castles (temporary fortresses and artillery platforms)." Prioryman (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Peter of Savoy regained control of Pevensey Castle after de Montford's defeat" As the siege failed, how did he lose it?
  • "Edward II's wife Isabella and Edward III's wife Philippa," The queens could be linked.
  • I had a look at this and Edward II's wife was called Isabella not Margaret. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " His actions attracted public hostility which culminated in the Peasants' Revolt of 1381 when a mob attacked the castle, burnt its court rolls and abused the steward." This appears to say that the Peasants Revolt was about Pevensey Castle!
  • That would be unfortunate. :-) I've changed this to "during the Peasants' Revolt". Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Henry IV's second wife Joan of Navarre was imprisoned by Henry's stepson Henry V" Should be Joan's stepson.
  • Sussex Archaeological Society - worth linking.
  • A very good article. These points are all fairly minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links [1] (no action req'd).
    • External links check out [2] (no action req'd).
    • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [3] (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
      • OK, I'll work through these. It's good practice even if not required for ACR. Prioryman (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Notitia Dignitatum - Comes litoris Saxonici per Britanniam.jpg - lacks author and date information. Is it available?
    • Rest of the images all seem to be PD / free and have the req'd information (no action req'd)
    • Captions look fine (no action req'd)
    • No duplicate links (no action req'd)
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals a few issues with reference consolidation:
      • Goodall, p. 18 Multiple references contain the same content
      • Goodall, p. 28 Multiple references contain the same content
      • Goodall18 Multiple references are using the same name
      • Goodall28 Multiple references are using the same name
        • I'm not sure what the issue is here - can you explain further? Prioryman (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Essentially you have multiple identical references that haven't been consolidated (i.e. named). Anotherclown (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've done this myself now as I don't want a minor issue to hold up the promotion of a good article. Pls check and change if I got it wrong. Anotherclown (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [4] (no action req'd)
    • Some of the short citations are confusing to me. Specifically the Goodall ones - do these relate to his 1999 work or the 2013 one?
      • That's a referencing error. They should all be to the 2013 work. I've corrected this. Prioryman (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the references: "Howard, Mary Matilda (1855). Hastings, past and present: with notices of the most remarkable places in the neighbourhood. DIplock and Smith. p. 134" should probably use title case.
    • Only a brief review from me for the moment, more to follow. Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've read over the prose and am happy it meets the criteria. Added my support now although the issue with title case remains I'm happy to leave this up to you. In my opinion it is req'd to be MOS compliant but its a small issue and maybe my interpretation is incorrect at any rate (no one else seems to have raised it in the review). It may be raised at FA though (and maybe it wont). All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Pevensey_Castle&oldid=615101564"