Talk:Sauvey Castle

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 23:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll review this article over the Easter break Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

This article is in excellent shape. I have only the following comments:

• "It was probably built by King John in 1211" - please link King John here

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Can you say why the king needed his hunting lodge to be well fortified? (and was this common?)

• The sources don't comment, but my thoughts... I suspect the castle would have been secure, but not necessarily good for defence. The water-filled moat could, I think, have been drained by attacking the dam, which wasn't defended with a barbican or similar protection (for contrast, see Kenilworth, where the dam was well covered by surrounding defences). The whole site would have been secure from infantry and crossbowmen, but would have been slightly exposed to medieval artillery, although only the King usually possessed such siege engines (at least, until the First Barons War). I suspect the intent was to produce a secure site, which couldn't easily be attacked by bandits or similar miscreants, and which looked suitably antiquated (it would have looked a bit like a converted early Norman site, after all), with a rather splendid water feature which would have reflected the castle nicely in the evening, all surrounded by deep dark forests - great for a royal retreat and a bit of hunting. The antiquated flavour might also have appealed, given that John had just acquired the lands (you see this a lot when people acquired the new estates - they wanted to give the impression they'd been there for ever). Hchc2009 (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough. I imagine that having a secure hunting lodge also discouraged the local nobility from trying anything silly ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• "the government of the young Henry III" - please link Henry III

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Historic England consider it to be an unusual site, with "few parallels nationally"" - the source provides several reasons for the site being unusual, and adding this would strengthen the article.

• They focus on the plan (the moat design being the unusual feature) - I've added in some clarity on that. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• "a date in the reign of King Stephen" - please link his name, and add the dates of his reign to help clarify this point.
• File:Sauvey Castle plan.png probably needs a PD-UK tag as well, but is clearly PD Nick-D (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think there are no PD-UK tags for this type of image any more, they were deprecated a while back - the UK 70-year rule is covered by the existing tag. Happy to be pointed at one though! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• OK - commons tags do my head in. The reason that this is PD in the US should do the trick. I'm happy to pass this article: nice work once again with it. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Assessment

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?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: