Jump to content

Talk:St Briavels Castle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSt Briavels 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 26, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 28, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that St Briavels Castle, once the royal hunting lodge of King John of England, later became a notorious debtors' prison?

Expansion

[edit]

I've gone through and expanded it out from the stub and added some pictures in as well, along with the in-line citations. I couldn't find much on recent events, however, so the final section is relatively short.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomenal work - well done! But I have a query about the article title - why does it include the apostrophe? The name of the village does not, and I would have thought there's no justification for it in the title of this article. Incidentally, I have Pevsner's Buildings of England: Gloucestershire, which I see you haven't referenced - do you want me to check through it to see if there is anything which could be added to the article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you've got a copy to hand, that'd be great. On the title, a good question. I didn't notice it myself until I'd finished editing - there are some older references to St Briavel's, but you're right of course, nowadays we all refer to it without the apostrophe. I guess we need to move the article to an apostrophe free version, and redirect from the original (I'm not entirely sure how to do the first step in the process). Hchc2009 (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the article and left a note at T:DYK. I'll have a look at Pevsner and make any adjustments necessary to the text - may take a few days though, with kids and school holidays, etc., but I'll certainly try to do it before it gets to DYK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some details from Pevsner - happy to answer any queries. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    ... with £291 being spent in the next four years. Can you provide a modern equivalent for this sum?
    I'm usually cautious about giving modern equivalencies for medieval sums, particularly large ones, because of the differences between prices for consumer goods (e.g. the price of a loaf of bread), average wages (e.g. how much was the typical labourer paid) and the price for large projects (e.g. building a castle). None the sources I'm using were willing to venture a modern price equivalent for just this reason. I think we've got the same issue on the Caernarfon Castle article - I'd be happy to go with whatever the consensus is!
    (An example of the problem... £20 in 1264 could translate as £10,500 in 2009 money using the retail price index equivalent, or £237,000 using average earnings! And that's before you consider how many people had £20 available - it would be a bigger capital sum today than even £237,000 would imply) Hchc2009 (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the difficulty, I won't press this. It might be an issue at {{WP:FAC]] if you take it there. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By 1233 the castle could produce 120,000 quarrels in 120 days, would this be better phrased as 1,000 quarrels per day?
    I know what you mean. The problem I've got is that the original source gives the figures as for a production period of 120 days (although Malemort gets his own daily tally). Now, I suspect that they wouldn't have worked every one of those days (e.g. they'd have had Sundays off!) and so the actual output per day would therefore have had to have been over 1,000 - 1,166 or so if they did a 6 day week. But there is a bit of supposition here! What do you reckon? We could go for "an average of 1,000 quarrels a day" perhaps? Hchc2009 (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, in fact thinking about it when saint's days are factored in the daily production might have been higher. Perhaps a slight rephrase such as: "A production level of 120,000 quarrels in a 120 day period (or even "four month period") was achieved in 1273."
Changed as per your proposal. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ...the surrounding forest was the £20 fee each year .... again modern equivalents would be good.
    Ditto - we can compare it to the other castles being maintained, but a straight cash equivalency isn't usually reliable. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ''...were for extremely small sums of debt of £5 or less, increasingly unacceptable in Victorian eyes. and again?
    Victorian I'm much more happier with - I've gone for the retail price equivalent: £373 and £522 respectively.Hchc2009 (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    On-line references check out, assume good faith for off-line sources.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Is there a suitable plan available?
    I couldn't find a copy-right free one last time I did a search, but I'll have another trawl today. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a GA requirement, but would be an improvement to the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of a free version, I've drawn one myself.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  2. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  3. 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):
    Suitably captioned and licensed.
  4. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I am happy to pass this as GA. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good diagram, the artcile is much improved. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_Briavels_Castle&oldid=1210523153"