Talk:St Catherine's Castle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 23:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll aim to get to this by the w/e. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox check -- no dab or EL issues.

Prose/content

Regarding the "ruinous" state of the castle after the Civil War, was it not the Parliamentarians' practice to "slight" fortifications held for the King? Or don't any of the sources make it explicit in St Catherine's case?

They slighted some castles. Typically the ones more likely to be slighted were in areas where Parliament feared a Royalist revolt or where they wanted to make a "statement" to the locals (e.g. Raglan). Coastal defences often escaped slighting, because Parliament feared invasion at various points, and defences that looked expensive to damage (either with gunpowder or teams of men, neither of which came cheap) sometimes got away intact. There's no listing of St Cat's being on the slighting lists from Parliament (although not every slighting seems to have been centrally mandated) and no local tradition around this. My guess is that it just wasn't repaired over the period, but that's getting into OR... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'd clean forgotten they tended not to slight the strategically important castles -- they weren't silly about it, were they?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I love the account of the problems they had with the keep at Raglan - it was too tough to take down easily! Reminds me of the bunker at Bletchley Park - the poor contractors deployed to knock it down a few years back found that the bomb-proof construction meant that it wasn't an easy task... Hchc2009 (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said in trimming the sentence about the Crimean War that explaining the opponents disrupted the sentence flow but OTOH you could just mention the source of the invasion threat -- up to you.
"64-lb rifled, muzzle-loading artillery pieces"; "4.7-inch naval guns"; "75 mm gun" -- do we not give conversions for gun sizes?

I'm honestly not sure; I left a message on the project page a week or so back asking if we had MOS on this, but had no answer. I'll add them in. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I hadn't noticed that post... :-P I know Sturm and Parsec generally convert all sizes in their warship articles, though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Structure -- logical/straightforward

References -- I think Reflist is supposed have "|30em" (or similar) parameter these days but nothing else stood out re. formatting (or reliability)

Images -- licensing looks fine.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Ian. Should all be done now. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, tks -- passing as GA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]