Talk:King Charles's Castle

King Charles's Castle 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.
Review: May 2, 2014. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the King Charles's Castle article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Fortifications / British / European / Medieval / Early Modern

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Architecture

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cornwall Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CornwallWikipedia:WikiProject CornwallTemplate:WikiProject CornwallCornwall-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines:

Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty!
Articles on settlements in Cornwall should be written using the standard set of headings approved by the UK geography WikiProject's guideline How to write about settlements.
At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline.
These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, etc) and should not overflow into other articles.
Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?!

Expansion...

I've gone through and expanded a bit. I'll give it a day or so, then go through and try to get it ready for a GA review. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:King Charles's Castle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 01:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009, upon my initial review of this article, it meets the majority of criteria for Good Article status. I will review this article more thoroughly in the coming days and I will share my comments and suggestions here for you to address before passing this to Good Article status. Thank you for all your continued extraordinary contributions to Wikipedia! -- Caponer (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Hchc2009, even though this article looks just about ready for passage to Good Article status, I have a few questions and comments that need to be addressed below. A lot of these are nit-picky, but with such an incredibly written article, I could not make more substantial suggestions. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns for me in the meantime! Again, you've done a fantastic job on this article! -- Caponer (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph of the Construction subsection, you mention "spilled over into war in 1538." Does this refer to a specific named conflict or war?

I've never seen it named. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph of the Construction subsection, would it flow better to reword the first sentence as the following: As a result of the inspection, Sir Francis Flemming, the Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance, was tasked in February 1558 with improving the defences on the islands. Flemming was supported in this effort with a shipment of lead to aid in construction, and money raised from the dissolution of the monasteries in England.

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of paragraph 4, you may want to remove to from "through to the end of 1552."

I've tweaked to retain the sense - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After "St Mary's," you may also want to make a second sentence consisting of "At least 540 oak trees from South Wales were dispatched to the islands in early 1550, since the islands lacked suitable sources of timber of their own."

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the fifth paragraph of the Construction subsection, you should consider rewording "the decision was taken at the end of 1552" to "it was decided at the end of 1552."

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Weaknesses subsection, Sixteenth century should be spelled out as it starts the sentence.

I've tweaked a bit. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to add a comma after 1554 in the first paragraph of the Weaknesses subsection. With this usage, overlooking can be written as one word.

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph under 17th-century, you may want to link and explicitly state during the English Civil War.

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph, you should probably place a comma following 1651.

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may consider renaming the last History section from "18th–21st centuries" to "18th century-present"

The term "present" is cautioned against by some editors, so I tend to go for century in this context. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For paragraphs where only one source is used, it is only necessary to utilize one internal citation at the end of the paragraph.

I'm in the "cite per sentence" camp, mainly because it makes porting text easier, but also because I've had huge issues over the years working through paragraphs trying to work out if a paragraph citation supports all the text. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009, you have sufficiently addressed all my above concerns and suggestions, and it is my pleasure to formally pass this article to Good Article status! Congratulations on a job well done, and thank you tremendously for your contributions in illustrating British history on Wikipedia! -- Caponer (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on King Charles's Castle. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110901223916/http://www.measuringworth.com/index.php to http://www.measuringworth.com/index.php

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) 06:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]