Talk:Weston Turville Castle

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Fortifications / British / European / Medieval

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

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

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Buckinghamshire (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire articles

A fact from Weston Turville Castle appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 May 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Weston Turville Castle was slighted on Henry II's orders after the Revolt of 1173–1174?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Weston Turville Castle.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 12:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Weston Turville Castle was slighted on Henry II's orders after the Revolt of 1173–1174? Source: Painter, Sidney (1935). "English Castles in the Early Middle Ages: Their Number, Location, and Legal Position". Speculum. 10 (3): 322. JSTOR 2848384.
- Reviewed:

5x expanded by Richard Nevell (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Richard Nevell (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Consider eliminating parentheses and piping the link to slighted within demolished. Alternately, consider removing it altogether. You really don't want parentheticals in a hook, as it defeats the purpose of DYK. Viriditas (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: even briefer with the hook; I suggest "... that Weston Turville Castle was slighted on Henry II's orders after the Revolt of 1173–1174?'". That there were other castles is true but not necessary for the hook; the potentially unfamiliar use of slighted in this context enhances the hook. Klbrain (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this suggestion. I hesitated to mention it because I didn’t want to drastically alter the hook, but I should have. Viriditas (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas and Klbrain: Good suggestion! I'm too close to the topic of slighting to remember the curiosity factor may hook people in. I've adjusted the hook. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Nevell: Is that a typo I see in the "Layout" section of the article? It says "Weston Turville Castle consists of a mound or (a motte) with two attached enclosures (baileys): on to the south and one to the east". Or is the use of "on" here unique to British English? Viriditas (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very unique (typos are a speciality!). I've now fixed it Richard Nevell (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Nevell: Apologies, but I think I've spotted another, this time in the "Archaeological investigation" section: should "The excavation lasted for three week" be changed to "three weeks"? Also, you need spaces between the measurement units, "9m long and 3m". Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed that one and checked again. I think I've fixed all the typos (which is a guaranteed way to flush out any remaining typos). Richard Nevell (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Nevell: Unless I'm reading this wrong (and that's certainly possible, so take this with a grain of salt), DYKcheck is showing you are coming up short in the fivefold expansion count, which amounts to a missing 464 characters, which could be interpreted as a missing 40 words or so. If true, all you have to do is add a few more sentences, or a small paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using the Prosesize gadget the starting prose size was 506 characters and it's now 3,543. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that explains the problem. The count you are using starts at 15 February (506 char), but you need to start the count at the time of expansion, which is 2 April (797 chars), which is within the seven day window for fivefold expansion. 15 Feb is, sadly, not. Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck makes this easier to determine as you can easily run it on an individual date by going to the diff in the page history. It shouldn't be that difficult to add two sentences, as that's all it's going to take. Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance says "This calculation is made from the last version of the article before the expansion began", so that would be 15:18, 2 April 2024 (506 characters). The expansion started at 18:05, 2 April 2024‎ so all within seven days. I just installed DYK Checker and it does say "Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 32 edits ago on February 27, 2024. Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days (37 days)". I'm not sure how it's worked that out, but the page history makes it clear the expansion took place almost entirely on 2 April, and on that day the starting size was 506 characters. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct, because it would mean the fivefold expansion window was extended to several months instead of seven days. On 14:18, 2 April 2024, the day before you began expansion, the starting size was 797 characters according to DYK Checker, not 506.[1] DYKcheck also confirms this as the 5x expansion starting point size regardless of the approximate date. The last time the article was anywhere near 506 characters was on 15 February.[2] I think we can all agree that is just under two months over the seven day window and cannot be used a starting point for 5x expansion. Are we in agreement? All you need to do is add two sentences. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just went and did this without Prosesize or DYKcheck. I get 423 characters, which would give us 2,115 at 5x, so you are well over at 3,537. Not sure why it's giving me bad counts. So I think we are good to go and just need a review now. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall:

Everything checks out. I have learned never to rely on DYKcheck going forward. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]