Jump to content

Talk:Cultybraggan Camp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCultybraggan Camp has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 6, 2024Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 16, 2024.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the area of Cultybraggan Camp has been a royal hunting ground, a prison for fervent Nazis and the site of an underground bunker intended for use in a nuclear war?

Heinrich Steinmeyer

[edit]

I have deleted the contribution by 80.147.24.253 as much of it already exists in the article. 'He' has no Talk page, so direct communication is not possible. Shipsview (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cultybraggan Camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed, well done Pahunkat, I would encourage you to nominate an interesting fact from the article to Did you know.--Llewee (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cultybraggan Camp/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pahunkat (talk · contribs) 18:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Llewee (talk · contribs) 17:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pahunkat, I will be reviewing this nomination. This is a very interesting and broadly well-written article. I will give a short list of points for how it could be improved further. Please use the  Done template to indicate when each problem has been dealt with. Feel free to add any comments or questions below each point.--Llewee (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sources

[edit]

I did a number of spotchecks which were generally fine. In regards to this Canmore page, it may worth clarifying...--Llewee (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Canmore says it is unclear whether Italian prisoners were ever detained in the camp which contradicts the article.
     Done Added new sources, these explicitly say Italian prisoners were the first ones.
  • Canmore also says the camp was emptied "circa May 1947" rather than exactly then.
     Done Wrong source, fixed.
[edit]

There were no issues with the earwig check. The Canmore page mentioned in the previous section has the highest overlap but that seems to be because of a quote that appears in the article.

Other subjects

[edit]
  • Could more information about what was on the land prior to the 1940s be included with the sentence about James V of Scotland? "Cultybraggan Farm" suggests that it was farmland but that could be said more explicitly.
    Hard to find more on the land history before the camp, I'll keep looking tomorrow. I'm actually AGFing the James V part as I am unable to fully understand the source, it was added here by another user who looks experienced - let me know if that's inappropriate and I can remove it.
    Unfortunately unable to find anything else. For what its worth, I moved the section about Cultybraggan Farm to be with the James V part.
    Google translate had limited success with the James V source. However, based on what it did manage to translate, the content is clearly about food so I would be inclined to take it on trust.--Llewee (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the refugee members of 249 Company Pioneer Corps." - Could you briefly mention who the refugees were? Presumably, they were from one of the countries occupied by Germany?
     Done
  • The Scotsman article includes more information about camp life which could be added — "The men had the option of joining choir, orchestra, learning English as well as a number of other activities".
    Warrants a new paragraph, will get to drafting this tomorrow.
     Done
    I think this sentence (Compounds had access to facilities...) probably fits better in the paragraph about conditions. I am not sure if there is really enough information about conditions to warrant it's own paragraph.--Llewee

(talk) 11:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Llewee, merged. Pahunkat (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who are looking to use it as a long-term data storage facility" — Given the age of the source I think it would be better to change "looking to" to the past tense, something like "intended".
     Done

Hi Llewee, thanks for reviewing the article. I've implemented some of the suggested changes above, the other two require a bit more research but I should have it sorted by tomorrow. Pahunkat (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee, please see my comments above - I've addressed what I can. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
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.


Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Cultybraggan Camp
Cultybraggan Camp
  • ... that the area of Cultybraggan Camp (pictured) has been a royal hunting ground, a prison for fervent Nazis and the site of a underground bunker intended for use in a nuclear war?
  • Source: *Excerpta e libris domicilii Domini Jacobi Quinti regis Scotorum (Edinburgh, 1836), pp. 230-231, appendix p. 32, citing National Records of Scotland E32 series.
  • Historic Environment Scotland. "Comrie, Cultybraggan Former Cadet Camp, Huts 19 and 20 (Guard's Block) and 44, 45, 46 (Category A Listed Building) (LB50471)". Retrieved 22 March 2019.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mariesa Crow
  • Comment: I reviewed this article (nominated by Pahunkat) and advised the nominator to put it up for DYK. They haven't done so but I thought it would be a shame to miss this interesting a subject so am nominating it myself. I will complete a QPQ when I get time over the next couple of days.
Improved to Good Article status by Pahunkat (talk) and Shipsview (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 10 past nominations.

Llewee (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Llewee, review follows: article promoted to GA on 6 July' article is well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources; I didn't pick up any issues with overly close paraphrasing in a spotcheck; image is properly sourced and licensed; hook fact is interesting and mentioned in the article, the latter parts check out to the sources cited, I will have to AGF on the hunting part as I can't read Latin; this should be good to go once a QPQ is provided - Dumelow (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for nominating this Llewee, I've done the QPQ for you. I like the hook. The latin part was mentioned in the GA review, there's other things in the article it could be replaced by if it isn't permissible here (e.g. self-catering holiday accomodation). Pahunkat (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pahunkat, thanks for the QPQ. I am happy to assume in good faith that the Latin source supports what's in the article and pass this review - Dumelow (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dumelow and Llewee: the key Latin sentence seems to be "Item misse versiis Collybrathane ad venationes Regis iij' xl panes [Also sent to Collybrathane to the King's hunting expeditions, 40 loaves of bread - via Google translate]". @Unoquha: you added the sentence to the article here, do you have a source that identifies Collybrathane and Cultybraggan? TSventon (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The placename spelling is somewhat eccentric in this old (1836) edition of the manuscript Latin (appears twice). I can't find it spelled exactly like that elsewhere. There is no reason to think of anywhere else though, in easy reach of Stirling and Perth. Apparently, the place belonged to a royal official called Reddoch or Redeheuch.Unoquha (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultybraggan_Camp&oldid=1240549963"