Talk:Deal Castle/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 13:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Been looking forward to this one so bags it now... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox check -- no copyvio, dab or EL concerns.

Prose/structure -- reads well, logically organised; apart from my fairly minor copyedit the only things left AFAIC were:

I think we need to say what William Birdwood was to the castle when he's first mentioned in the body re. WWII damage.
"The ground floor is subdivided by radial walls and originally have been further subdivided by partitions" -- "originally may have been", or simply "was originally"?

Fixed as proposed. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content/detail -- I feel the article has sufficient detail for GA, and I'd be prepared to pass it once the other minor points I've raised are dealt with, but it's a good candidate for A/FA so thinking ahead I wonder if we could expand on design and construction (and/or architecture). What follows is simply what I gleaned from a book on castles I've had for years that was written by Richard Humble for the English Tourist Board, but it was what originally piqued my interest in Deal:

Humble suggests that Henry supposedly took a personal interest in the design -- do any of your sources corroborate?
He highlights some of the interesting 'modern' features that I think aren't really covered in our article yet, namely rounded stone work to deflect shot, the wide moat to help protect against enemy cannon, an overall low profile not unlike a modern tank in "hull-down" position, and the tiered "cloverleaf" style (with six leaves to Walmer's four) that gave the defenders broad and interlocking angles of fire; he also mentioned the murder holes in the entry, which I know wasn't new but might still worth mentioning.
Lastly he notes that despite being held by the Royalists in the Civil War, the Parliamentarians considered it too valuable a defensive fort to slight.

I couldn't find a good reference for the personal interest in the design. We know that he knew the Downs well, and that he was probably shown a diagram of the castle, but beyond that, I haven't found evidence of him taking a personal interest in Deal specifically. We could certainly add in that he took an interest in the Down castles as a whole though.
I'm not sure that current thinking supports the rounded stone work argument. Most of the arguments I've seen imply (but not clearly, as we don't really know) that it was to ensure a wide range of firing positions, using the broad embrasures. The low profile is usually put down to the need for very thick walls; I can add a bit on that in. Current literature is pretty critical of the "cloverleaf" design, as it left dead ground (and it is a bit mysterious why no-one told Henry this had already been fixed in Europe!). Will add something in.
I looked long and hard for a strong reference for the slighting bit a while ago, as it seemed a likely explanation, but without any luck. It's probable... but a newer theory also notes that Parliament didn't slightly usually big, expensive castles unless they had to (it was very, very difficult to undertake without well-paid, large teams of labourers or extensive use of gunpowder). Hchc2009 (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, didn't come out quite as I'd envisaged from Humble's book but then it is about 30 years old and was never designed to be a scholarly work... ;-) Are the murder holes in the entrance too passe to mention? Also is it worth noting that the moat was designed to be dry (if indeed it was, that's what I've gathered) as I think the average reader would assume such moats are generally filled with water. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten the murder holes - fixed. Current literature is uncertain if they were classic medieval murderholes, or hand-cannon slots, but definitely worth a mention. Ditto dry moat. Over on my user page, I'm finishing off a section on the general architecture of the Device Forts; it'd be OR, but you can definitely see a shift in interpretations in the late 1980s. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well there you go, tks for explaining that. Tks also for the additions, I'm just wondering if the way it's now expressed one could read the murder holes as original features no longer there, like the portcullis. Would something like "The gatehouse still has its original iron-studded doors — the historian Jonathan Coad considers them "among the best preserved for their date" – and five murder-holes to enable the garrison to defend the internal passageway with missiles or handguns; it would originally have also been protected by a portcullis at the entrance." make it more obvious without destroying the flow? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reads better, I agree - changed as you've suggested. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, tks for all that, passing as GA -- I was wearing my A-Class reviewer's hat as well when assessing this but only because I think it's close to that level, so I hope to see it there when and if you're ready. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing -- only spotted a couple of formatting errors, which I fixed; not an expert on the sources but no reason to doubt their reliability.

Images -- I think File:Deal Castle 1539 draft.jpg needs a US PD tag, the rest seem fine licensing-wise.

NB: done as well. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]