Talk:Wallingford Castle/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- I think you mean razed rather than raised when talking about the slighting.
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- Not a formal requirement at this level, but I'd suggest capitalizing your ref titles as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles. M-dash should be used for page ranges, not a hyphen or n-dash.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- Is there any info out there on the evolution of the castle itself in terms of structures? What did the excavations reveal?
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Is there a more detailed ground plan available? The existing one situates the castle in the terrain well, but is rather lacking otherwise.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- Ground plan - no, not that I could find. There's some improved plans available following some work about five years ago, but it is all copyrighted. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Raised > razed: fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've added an update on the excavations. The reports I've seen have focused on understanding the edge of the Anglo-Saxon burgh and the levels of occupation; I haven't seen any reports on the castle itself that are particularly informative (for the purposes of an article such as this - I'm sure they were good archaeology!). Hchc2009 (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- The capitalisation rules baffle me, I admit. Could you give me an example of where I've gone wrong, and I'll try to fix the others with that in mind? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- All words in titles and subtitles longer than 3 letters should be capitalized. Forex devolution in Keats-Rohan and most of the words in Durham's title. This applies to titles in cites and refs both. Add the missing R in cite #7.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Think I've caught them.Hchc2009 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't found any more on the evolution of the structure of the castle; generally, unless you've got some good archaeology, or you're lucky to have local records, the more earthwork dominated castles can be very hard to create structural chronologies for. Hopefully the current archaeological project will begin to help here, but its early days.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- You should mention that it had a shell keep.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- See what you think to the change.Hchc2009 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- That is better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've fixed the dashes with one click by using User:GregU/dashes.js. I'd recommend using it. Dashes are not actually part of GA criteria, even though people do sometimes mention them. SilkTork *Tea time 18:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Missed one in Spurrell.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Look at all the changes that I just made. I fixed the remaining capitalization errors in the citations, not just in the references that you mostly cleaned up. A couple of three-letter words like war and aim needed capitalization as well. I also deleted a lot of your redundant cites. If an entire paragraph is written using one source, it only needs to be cited at the end of the paragraph. Similarly a cite is considered to apply to everything in before it, until the beginning of the paragraph or another cite.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)