Talk:Deddington Castle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 08:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can I resist another castle (this time one I've never heard of)...? Will aim to complete sometime between Xmas and New Year. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox check -- No dab or EL issues.

Prose -- copyedited for verbiage, repetition, consistent tense, etc, so of course let me know if I've broken anything; outstanding points:

”granted out to sub-tenants” – is “granted out” a technical term or can we simply say “granted”, which sounds more pleasing to my ear at least?

Agree, much better. Changed. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

”In the early 12th century, additional earthworks were thrown up…” – aside from the vomitous terminology (which I know is normal language for this action), can we change this to something active, e.g. say who organised it? If unknown, feel free to leave as is, just thought I’d check...

Worth asking. No, unfortunately the owner of the castle is really uncertain around this period, and the dating is on the basis of the archaeology (which is pretty good for this period of the site in terms of dating, thanks to the stratification). Thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Structure/comprehensiveness -- seem quite okay to an admitted non-expert.

Referencing -- everything is sourced to what look like reliable references; only formatting issue is some Harv errors (should install Ucucha's script).

It's installed. I can't seem to get the system to accept the auto-linking to journals that spread over one year (the "1961-62" kind of date for a journal issue is throwing the coding for some reason I don't understand). Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird... Posted at the template's talk? Is someone looking at it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look a week or so back, and I think it was raised before, but inconclusively. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I won't hold back on passing as GA over a template, although if it were me I probably wouldn't use it until it was sorted. Admittedly the average WP reader won't have the script enabled but for those that do... Anyway, I'll leave that to you -- fine work as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting materials -- infobox and images licensing look fine.

Summary -- nothing really holding this back from GA, well done as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]