Template talk:Did you know/Whorlton Castle

Whorlton Castle

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as 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 Crisco 1492 (talk)

... that Whorlton Castle (pictured) in North Yorkshire is an unusual example of a Norman motte-and-bailey castle that continued to be used throughout the Middle Ages?

Reviewed: Trimerorhachis ([1])

Created by Prioryman (talk). Self nom at 09:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a comment and signature (or just a signature if endorsing) after each aspect you have reviewed:

Hook

Length, format, content rules – Number 5 7 21:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source – Number 5 7 21:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interest – Number 5 7 21:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image suitability, if applicable – Number 5 7 21:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ALT hooks, if proposed –

Article

Length – Number 5 7 21:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vintage – Number 5 7 21:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing (V, RS, BLP) – The claim about the castle originally being named after the village does not appear to be backed up by the source (which mentions only that it was once its name). Number 5 7 21:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified this in the article with a bit of rewording. Prioryman (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source still doesn't back it up - it says that it was known as Potto Castle in the 13th Century (when it was built a century earlier), not that it was originally known as Potto Castle. Number 5 7 08:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you were getting at now. Forgive my denseness. I've amended the text to resolve this issue. Prioryman (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm being thick, the reference for it being given listed status in 1928 doesn't actually mention this. Number 5 7 09:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right, I used the wrong reference - it's this one. I've fixed this now. Prioryman (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now looks good to go! Number 5 7 20:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality – Number 5 7 21:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism/close paraphrasing – Number 5 7 21:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
copyvio (files) – Number 5 7 21:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting – Number 5 7 21:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/discussion: