Talk:Whitley Castle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 09:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through and start the review later on. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that should be about it. It's an interesting piece, with a bit of work required on a few points as detailed below, and it should then be good for GA status. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have responded to each item below and edited the article accordingly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Passed at GA. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

Was R.G. Collingwood an antiquarian? I'd have said he was an historian.

Done. Robertson does in fact lump him in with the 'antiquaries' on pp16-18.

"Whitley Castle is about 15 miles (24 kilometres) south of Hadrian's Wall, " - it seemed strange to be returning to the location of the fort, given that the previous paragraph has moved away from the location to discuss the pasture etc. Would it be easier if this was brought up to the rest of the section discussing its location?

Done.

"Inscriptions on some of the altars found at Epiacum provide evidence of the Roman army units..." this read oddly, as you've just named one of the garrison units in the previous sentence.

Merged.

"This names an auxiliary cohort that manned the fort early in the 3rd century..." repeats the point made in the paragraph above it

Removed.

Worth being consistent with "Second" or "2nd"

Changed to 2nd.

Personally, I'm not sure the details of the inscriptions add much here, but that's a personal opinion, and not a GA requirement.

Noted. They do seem to go well with the altar image, and they are the primary evidence for the garrison.

"a headquarters building Praetorium" - felt like there was a word or two missing here

Added parentheses.

Is it possible to explain where the regular legionnaires lived? (it talks about where the auxiliaries stayed, but not the regulars)

Their base was at York; regulars would not have garrisoned a fort permanently. Probably they just squashed in to the fort's accommodation temporarily.

"But Epiacum has two unique features." - I'd strongly recommend against starting a paragraph with "But..."

Removed.

Given that the unique features of the fort are its shape and defences, could this come further up in this section (e.g. before the details of the altars?)

Done.

"Little archaeological research has taken place at Epiacum..." for consistency, shouldn't this be Whitley Castle?

Done.

"This interesting remain of antiquity is lozenge shaped in form..." this quote seemed to be repeating what had been said in the previous section; I couldn't quite see what value it was adding. If it's accurate, could the distances be added to the previous section when the site is being described?

OK, removed the lozenge description, leaving the mention of the baths and midden.

"The fort was surveyed and described by R.G. Collingwood in his Archaeology of Roman Britain, 1930." does Collingwood say when he surveyed the site, or give any other details? The reference gives the title of the work, and it would be more interesting if the main text could give additional information, rather than just repeating it.

Done.

"suggested that the fort was constructed in 122, " - should be 122 AD for consistency. Is the date correct/reliable? (the section above just says "early 2nd century")

Done.

" Artefacts found include coins, pottery, glass ..." - this appeared to be repeating the paragraph at the top of the section

Removed the brief summary at the top of the section.

"Terra sigillata ("Samian ware", Roman table pottery)" - I think that "terra sigillata" is usually presented without a capital letter.

Done.

MoS guidelines

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

"In addition, it has the most complex defensive earthworks of any known Roman fort, with multiple banks and ditches outside the usual stone ramparts." I was surprised that this didn't appear in the main text.

Added.

Similarly, the details on the waste heap and beads appear in the lead, but not in the archaeology section.

Done.

Worth checking for the wikilinking (including when first linked) - e.g. geophysics survey; lead mining; auxiliaries; Samian pottery; Alston; lower Rhine; bath house; parallelogram; jet; strigil

Done.

I thought the flow of the lead was a bit odd; having the date of the fort's construction after the details of what was found on the waste heap seemed unusual - would it be worth restructuring it so that the construction date came closer to the top?

Done.

"Roman fort itself covers about 4 acres" - needs a metric equivalent

Done.

Worth being consistent in how the Latin words are presented - e.g. 'Praetorium, 'vicus', Terra sigillata ("Samian ware", Roman table pottery) are all treated in different ways.

Done.

"probably means 'the property, or estate of Eppius..." - needs double speech marks instead of single here, as per the MOS.

Done.

"north east" - "northeast" or "north-east"

Done.

Why was footnote a in a footnote, as opposed to the main text? It seemed fairly relevant to the history...

Moved to main text.

Factual

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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;

"It is one of the most isolated Roman sites in Britain, which may help to explain both why it remains largely unexcavated (in 2012), and why so much of it has survived." - I couldn't work out what the reference was for this.

Ref added.

"Robertson (2007) " - why the year here? (I don't think the article handles other dated works like this)

Removed.

(c) it contains no original research.

Excepting the points noted above, none found.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

Is there any information on who owns the site today, and whether it is accessible to the public?

The land is owned by the farmer of Castle Nook farm. Added this under 'Protection'.

Is it protected under UK law (e.g. as a scheduled monument)?

Yes. Added a short section called 'Protection'.

If the www.Roman-Britain.org site used in the article is a reliable source, could some of the other details there be used? (e.g. the alternative source for the name etc.)

The etymology there is speculative and doesn't make sense in Latin; its facts are all covered in primary or secondary sources so have removed the ref.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

File:Whitley Castle Bruce 1853.jpg gives the author as Alastair F. Robertson, but the description gives the authorship as Thomas Sopwith (I think the latter is correct, given the license tag being claimed).

Fixed.

File:Plan of Epiacum Roman fort.gif gives a fair use rationale. Collingwood lived from 1889 – 1943, so his work is now out of copyright in the UK under the 70 year rule; provided a check was done on any copyright extension in the US, this is probably now out of copyright altogether and could be updated accordingly.

Have added PD-Art|PD-old-70 to image. It appears from the resulting message that this is probably sufficient as you say, but have left the fair usage rationale in place for now. A bot or copyright expert may move image to Commons.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

The images are all relevant, but in the "Roman fort" and "Archaeology" sections the number of them and (in the latter case) placement is resulting in a "sandwiching" of the text between two columns of images, contrary to the MOS guidance. I'm not sure how it appears on your screen?

Arranged images in both sections to avoid sandwiching.

Check when Thomas Sopwith is first linked in the image captions

Moved link earlier.

Some of the image captions end in full stops, but aren't complete sentences.

Done.

Minor, but is there any pattern to when the captions refer to the "Roman Fort" (or "Roman fort") and when they refer to "Whitley Castle"? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now consistently use "Roman fort" (small f); have used "Whitley Castle" for the area today, but they're nearly synonyms. @Hchc2009: All comments addressed. Hope all OK now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]