Talk:Hylton Castle/GA2

GA Review

Early comments

As a result of my first review of the article, I have the following comments:

The sheer number of footnotes is distracting. There are roughly 130 separate footnotes and most sentences have at least one. Several have three or four. For example, I don't believe that this sentence requires 4 footnotes: "After 1728, Hylton's second son, John Hylton, de jure 18th Baron Hylton added a complementary south wing (its foundation wall still extant), crenellations to both wings and removed the door on the north wing." Excessive footnotes will not only prove distracting, but they can break up the article into stand-alone sentences.

Now, on some contentious issues there can be a need to document each statement, bur this is a rather dry subject.

I've removed the unneeded refs. Some with two or three are to reference different points in different sources, if they're part of the same sentence. Craigy (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph is a historical overview that, in my opinion, tries to say too much for a lead paragraph. I myself would move this paragraph and place it as a lead of the History section, which itself has no overview. Instead of this lengthy overview, I would add something a bit shorter.

In general, the article is well-written, with no immediately-apparent typos etc. I will be back with further comments after a more thorough read-thru. Thanks, Madman (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, I wasn't sure what to include in the lead, but I agree, it was a bit too specific. Without adding an overview in the History section, I've re-wrote the lead - hopefully it's ok. Craigy (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd read-thru

Some notes:

This will not disqualify the article from a GA rating, but I wish the images or image captions tied in better with the text. I realize that the present trend in Wikipedia is to thumbnail the photos, but I wish that the photo (under Exterior) was large enough to show "octagonal, machicolated turrets" and the caption would point them out. Similarly, the Interior layout section contains some interesting information, but I can't picture it all in my head, and the schematic on the right is so tiny as to be no use at all. Again, this won't stop the article from reaching GA, but the article would benefit immensely from a tighter integration of images and text.

I've resized some of the images and expand a bit on the captions. Craigy (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also note from the earlier GA review that there were supposedly too many images. It's hard to imagine this, particularly for a Yank like me who is quite unfamiliar with the finer points of castles.

There were quite a few, but they did clutter the article somewhat. They've been moved to the Commons and can be found via the link at the bottom of the article. Craigy (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "consolidated the shell" mean?

I believe it's an architectural term, meaning to strengthen a building's outer walls.Craigy (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Heraldry section is difficult, but I believe that comes with the territory. I think that the list of 20 shields are perhaps excessive, but I would never suggest you remove them. I do think that some of the more unusual terms should be linked or re-linked. This would include "debruised", "Lucy", and "a fess inter three crescents Gules". I would suggest wiki-linking these terms even if they were linked earlier in the article.

I've linked all of the heraldic terms which have articles. There doesn't seem to be an explanation of "debruised" on Wikipedia, but it's basically something on top of an animal. "Lucy" (like "England", "France", "Percy") is used for abbreviation, as opposed to writing out the full blazon. Craigy (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding debruised, maybe we (you) could create a stubby article. I'm suggesting that you do it since you probably have a good citation. (P.S. This is independent of the GA rating).

Regarding Lucy and Percy, what do they refer to? If they refer to some noble family (as mentioned, I'm an ignorant Yank), then perhaps it would make sense to wiki-link those words to the family article. Your thoughts??Madman (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded on Percy/Lucy, but with regards to debruised: I don't think it deserves its own article. What might be better is something like List of heraldic terms to include all the other heraldic verbs on Wikipedia which aren't explained – however, I can't really be arsed to write something like that at the moment :-) Craigy (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done with second read thru. Madman (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Very clear, straightforward prose. Works well, but is a little on the dry side.
b (MoS): Precisely follows Manual of Style.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Good references. Who'd know there were that many??
b (citations to reliable sources): Fine citations, good, but there still are, in my opinion, a distractingly large number.
c (OR): Nope

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): This article does a good job of exploring the various aspects of the subject. The "Interior" section is a little dense, consisting of little more than description after description. What this section needs is more of a show-and-tell. Images are needed to support the text, but unfortunately the schematic is too tiny to be of use.
b (focused): No, doesn't ramble.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: Oh yes

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: Nope

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Yes
b (appropriate use with suitable captions): I think expanded captions would improve the quality of the article, something more than straightforward descriptions.

Overall: Definitely a good article. Without a doubt.
Pass/Fail: Pass

Good job! Madman (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Madman! Your further comments are certainly appreciated and I'll be sure to address them should I plan on taking this to FA. Thanks again Craigy (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]