Wikipedia:Peer review/Scarborough Castle/archive1

Scarborough Castle

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it reviewed before nominating it for GA status. The bulk of the text came from the Citizendium article and I have converted this port over to use the usual wiki format for layout and referencing style. I would be interested in pointers to any other changes that are needed to bring it into line with our standards and any other things that need attention before a GA submission.

Thanks, Keith D (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start, but will need considerable work to reach GA. My main concern is that it is difficult to determine how closely the prose mirrors that of the sources. If you have been able to verify the claims in the article by checking against the sources, that's fine, but if not, is it certain that the Citizendium authors avoided close paraphrasing, plagiarism, or copyvios? Aside from this concern, I have others, listed below.

• Insofar as is reasonable, heads and subheads should be telegraphic and unique within a page and should avoid repeating the main words of the article title. I'd be inclined to shorten "Early history of the site" to "Early history", "Original wooden castle, 1138–1157" to "Wooden original, 1138–1157", the next subhead to "Stone, c. 1157–1216". I wouldn't use "castle" in any head or subhead.
  • Changed.

• In the infobox, 12th century appears in digits, but "seventeenth century" was spelled out in the lead. I changed it to 17th century, then noticed other big ones spelled out further down in the article. However, even further down is 20th century. They should all be consistent, and the usual pattern is to use words for nine and smaller and digits for 10 and bigger unless the numbers start a sentence. In that case, they must be spelled out. WP:MOS#Numbers has details.
  • Have changed these to digits.

• It's best not to link words familiar to most readers of English. I mention three examples below in the "Features" section, but there are many others such as "water", "seige", "monarch", "workshop", "wood", "pirate", "museum", and "kitchen" that should not be linked. Overlinking dilutes the importance of the necessary links.

• Many short sections and subsections make an article seem choppy and make it difficult to place images without overlapping section boundaries. For example, File:Henry II of England.jpg overlaps two sections and displaces an edit button. I would suggest merging some of the shorter subsections.

• Directional images generally look better if positioned to look into the page rather than out. I'd move George Fox to the left.
  • Moved to left.

• When a group of citation numbers appear together, it's best to arrange them in ascending order; i.e., [5][46] rather than [46][5].
  • Re-ordered.

• The Commons license page for File:Henry II of England.jpg gives the English Wikipedia as its source. What is needed instead is information about the original source, a book most likely.
  • Changed as per other image which is almost identical.

Features

• "some of many examples of changes to the castle over the centuries, which is itself a replacement for a twelfth-century fortification built around the remains of an eleventh-century Anglo-Saxon chapel" - This part of the paragraph needs a source too since its claims are unusual (not common knowledge).

• "This bridge replaced the two original drawbridges, and was rebuilt in 1337–1338[5] leads first to the inner bailey (courtyard), which would have been used for workshops, offices, a kitchen, and a storage area." - Doesn't quite make sense as written. Is something missing?

• "With its sloping plinth to aid defence" - Link plinth?
  • Linked as suggested.

• "his square three-storey building would have been over 100-foot-tall (30 m)" - Remove hyphens; i.e., 100 feet (30 m) tall?

• I would not link common words like "vegetables", "animals", or "fireplace".
  • Delinked.

• "(see early history of the site, below)" - I'd avoid these kinds of direct asides to the reader. Readers who continue will get to the history of the site in due course. Ditto for any other asides and linked asides in the article.
  • Links removed.

• "The 'King's Chambers' in the outer bailey" - Double quotation marks are standard except in the case of nested quotes. Ditto for other instances in the article.
  • Changed singe to double quotes.

• "The thirteenth-century Queen's Tower in the wall nearby also saw different uses: initially luxurious accommodation with private latrines, a porch added in 1320[5] and large windows with bay views, two of these windows were later blocked up, and one was changed to a cupboard with a rubbish chute." - A run-on sentence.
  • Split sentence.

Early history of the site

• "Archaeological evidence of Iron Age and later settlements from around 900–500 BCE[11] possibly suggest something as extensive as a full hill fort on the headland, though evidence of this is yet to be found." - This seems contradictory. If "evidence possibly suggest[s]", how can it be that "evidence ... is yet to be found"?
  • Removed the latter part of the sentence.

Development of the castle as a tourist attraction

• The panorama looks good, but why include the duplicative smaller image? I'd delete it.
  • Removed the smaller image.

Other

• The link checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds two dead links in the citations.
  • I had marked 1 dead, and can probably be removed. The other one has gone dead in the last 20 days, I have replaced with a live URL.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. I will have to work through the points that you have raised. Keith D (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Nev1

• Is there any particular reason "royal" and "fortress" are linked in the opening sentence?
• No particular reason - I have de-linked them.
• The spelling of medieval needs to be consistent; both "medieval" and "mediaeval" are used at the moment.
  • Standardised on medieval throughout.
• "It was also fortified and defended for various civil wars, sieges and conflicts, as kings fought with rival barons, faced rebellion and clashed with republican forces": I don't like the phrase "republican forces". I assume it refers to the Civil War, but can the Parliamentarian forces really be described as republican?
• I found the bit about the inner about outer baileys a bit confusing and have had a go at rephrasing it. To be honest, I'm not sure the terms "inner" and "outer" are useful in this instance as it creates the idea that you have to pass through the outer to reach the inner. I realise that's what the English Heritate school guide uses, but what about the Goodall book? Outer and inner seem to relate more to the location of the keep and the social layout of the castle (buildings closer to the keep were generally more important and part of the "inner" household), but I'm damned if I can find a nice reference for that at the moment. Perhaps swap "inner" and "outer" for the compass directions?
• What is meant by the phrase "the west wall being strongest"? Is this the thickest wall, the wall with fewest windows, or something else? Strong is a bit vague.
• It's good that an effort has been made to explain the layout and use of the keep, but its not clear which floor the hearth was on.
  • It indicates first-floor, but probably that means what would be called ground-floor today as there is no mention of anything between basement and first-floor. Any ideas how best to word this?
• It's mentioned twice that the baileys are separated by a wall and ditch, I think the first mention could be removed. Also, where it says "The baileys are separated by a wall, ditch and bank, with two defended gateways" is it saying that there are two gateways leading from the inner to the out bailey?
  • I have removed the first occurrence & relocated the reference, source is not clear on the gateways, probably need to see what others say on that one.
• "A 12th-century mediaeval building, 100 feet (30 m) in length and excavated in 1888, also stood in the outer bailey to accommodate royal visitors, with a long hall and private chamber for the monarch (the only one with a fireplace), as well as rooms for preparing and storing food. This building was demolished sometime before a survey of 1538, which makes no mention of it, and only the foundations remain.": The first sentence is fine, but I'm struggling to find the bit in the sources which relates to the second sentence.
• The article uses mixed era systems, both BCE and AD are used.
  • Changed BCE to BC for consistency.
• "This fate of the settlement, if it existed at all, is supported by the fact that Scarborough is not mentioned in the Domesday Book (a survey or census of 11th-century England). However, there is no archaeological evidence of such an inferno, nor any of the Viking presence": Is it possible to check this against the source? The Domesday Book didn't cover anything and the first sentence look a bit like original research to me, especially given the Harrying of the North.
• "According to him, William le Gros built his fortress of wood, with a palisade wall (i.e. of wooden stakes) on the landward side, and a gate tower at the entrance. This motte and bailey castle subsequently disappeared, with only a small, raised mound (the motte) visible today, in the inner bailey:" I think this needs checking against the source as none of Pastscape, the Heritage Gateway, or the Gatehouse describe the 12th-century castle as a motte and bailey.
• Pettifer in English Castles (1995) suggests the early castle may have been modelled on Richmond, which may be worth mentioning (I can add that myself if you want).
• The section Piers Gaveston besieged, 1312 jumps about in time, it really should be arranged chronologically.
• The castle's role in the Pilgrimage of Grace should be mentioned.
• The keep was slighted during the Civil War as well as damaged by bombardment.
• What happened to the castle in the Restoration? Was it restored to the Crown?
• In some places, the phrasing is a little jarring with events followed by cause as was the case here.
• Some sections of history, particularly towards the end, are very short and the titles don't necessarily reflect the whole content of the section, and leads to some unnatural separations; for example the First World War is mentioned before 19th-century tourism. Maybe the history could be broken down into more general parts, but it's not a big deal.
• As Scarborough is an impressive ruin, did it have any role to play in the Romantic movement?
• There are a lot of low value wikilinks; I've removed some myself but linking to articles such as soldier isn't going to help someone wanting to know about Scarborough Castle.

I've made some copy edits you'll want to double check to make sure I haven't accidentally changed the meaning of anything. Some of the comments here may seem a bit down, but the article is quite good; it deserves the current B-class rating but I'd like to see these issues addressed before the article arrives at GAC (but I'd love to see it there). The castle has a fascinating history and looks quite remarkable. While I am not particularly familiar with Scarborough, I think it would be a good idea to check the article against some of the sources. As Goodall is the latest English Heritage book on the castle, I would expect that to be more frequently used than say Binns (is he/she mainstream?) or Page (perhaps outdated in some respects?). Nev1 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comments. I will have a look at them, though I am working from the imported text and have not got my hands on the source books as yet. Keith D (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009:

If it's any use to you, I've uploaded a copyright free plan of the castle from 1896 to the Commons; quality's not perfect though.

1896 plan

. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will probably put it in the features section when I get the text sorted out. Cannot get the source books at the moment so may be some time before I can make much progress. Keith D (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)