# Talk:Beeston Castle

The article needs to be expanded.
It should make use of sections.
References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. Make sure that as many as possible are "in-line" citations.(See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)
Peter I. Vardy 13:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The way that the ribbon of images down the right hand side of the screen is currently formatted means that the section edit buttons get stacked, and even hidden, at certain screen resolutions; the overall effect is a little bit untidy.
If we want that ribbon of images, would anyone have any objections to using a similar layout to that used in the "preposterous" Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester article? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The only "preposterous" thing about that article was the accusation levelled at it of being "preposterous". The layout method used helps sort out the issues, makes the visual appearance better, aids in people's navigation and editing, and doesn't violate any MOS issues. So I say you should implement it without delay.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Completely agree.  I think the Manchester article looks very good. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've made the change. I hope everyone agree that it's an improvement; at least I can see all the edit buttons now anyway. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's much better (must learn how to do that!).  Now all we need is/are lots of inline citations...... Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
... and a bit more information as well. There's a Grade II listed lodge that just appears out of nowhere, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I remember as well visiting when I was a kid; my favourite was the caves at the bottom of the crag, and I remember being told that they led somewhere - into the castle, I don't recall now? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The castle was partially demolished during the civil war, did it lie derelict after this? Nev1 (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they like an inline citation at the end of every paragraph (even if it is the same one).  And I think we need one right at the end.  Otherwise it's looking OK. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, a few more citations needed. Plus a plan of the layout as well, which I've been looking for. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The article looks very good. I added some wikilinks while reviewing it. I just have some nitpicks before passing it as a Good Article:

The prehistory section -- the cited source does not have the 800 BC and 400 BC dates mentioned in the article. Could you find a source for the dates, or take them out entirely?
Done. Removed the dates, as I don't have a reference for them. If anyone else does, then they can be put back. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The design section -- in the first sentence of the second paragraph, I think that "6 feet (2 m) thick walls, faced in sandstone and rubble infill" would be better than the current "with walls faced in sandstone and rubble infill, 6 feet (2 m) thick". It gives the impression that the facing is what is 6 feet thick. There is the same issue in the third paragraph of this section
Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Also in the design section -- I think that the sentence about the ditch's depth should say that the ditch is "up to" 30 feet (9 m) deep. The source only says that the ditch is 9 m deep in one corner, not that the entire ditch is that deep.
Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The Royal castle section -- is "Ranulph's successor John" John of Scotland, Earl of Huntingdon? (so the name can be wikilinked).
Done. The same person, yes, now wikilinked. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Same section, first paragraph the sentence "Earl John died...himself.", doesn't sound right to me. I'd prefer it without "himself" at the end of the sentence, but it's not a big deal.
Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Same section, second paragraph -- I'd prefer "the 16th century though" to be "however, by the 16th century"
Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Same section, last paragraph -- the treasure. The source cited at the end of the paragraph says that "...it is only a story. Henry IV is recorded to have recovered the gold and jewellery that constituted Richard's treasure from its various hiding places." The article  is clear that the treasure story is a rumour, but I think that the information about the documentation should also be included in the article.
Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The later history section -- the article says that "the event seems to have been quite popular", but the source just gives the numbers of visitors without saying that it was popular. I think that this phrase should be removed.
Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
That's it! This is my first GA review, so I hope it's okay :) Bláthnaid 19:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought that was a great review, but I'm sure you'll understand if I reserve my final judgement until you pass this article. ;-) Thanks for the obvious effort that you've put into this. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again. I've passed the GA, and I'll provide a detailed review below. This appears to be the only castle article on GA, so congratulations! Bláthnaid 14:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
My mistake, Buckton Castle is on GA. Congratulations still stand though :-) Bláthnaid 14:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that some %&$£(&" had beaten me to the first castle GA. :-)
Well, what about Halton Castle? See it also on Portal:Cheshire.  But don't let that spoil the pride (too much). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The important thing here is that the only 3 castle GAs are in the North West. And I've never been so proud to be called a little %&$£(&", even if it's Peter I. Vardy who's the real culprit :-) Nev1 (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
On the Wikipedia:Good articles page, Halton Castle is in the Architecture section, while Buckton Castle is in the Weapons and military equipment section. Since the castles are in the same part of the world and are protected monuments, maybe all three castle articles should be put in the same section for people (eg, me) who can't use CTRL+F? I was originally going to put Beeston Castle in the Urban and historical sites section. Bláthnaid 19:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't sure where to put it, and I think I probably picked the category I did because I'd seen Buckton Castle there. I'm all for consistency though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


### Good Article review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Well presented and written chronological history of the castle.
B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
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: 
Well illustrated with free images.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Congratulations! Bláthnaid 14:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How about swapping this image with this one. The angles are different, but they both show how high Beeston Castle is above the surrounding terrain. Assuming that's the purpose of the photo, I think the second one is a good alternative as it's higher quality, sharper, and the colours are better. Nev1 (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought we could do better than the original image.  I support changing it; The new one's not ideal, but it's a big improvement.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I've been bold and done it. The original one was a bit washed out anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added a section titled 'Geology' before the 'Prehistory' section. Now it may be better to have initiated a new article which deals solely with the natural feature that is Beeston Castle hill/crag though I anticipated calls for it to be merged with tjis article - the natural and the cultural/historical are so closely intertwined here. Any thoughts?  Geopersona (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that's an interesting addition, and is better here than in a standalone article, where I don't think it would survive, as you say. I felt that it would be better coming after the Prehistory section, so I swapped those two paragraphs around, but if you don't agree I wouldn't have any objection to you swapping them back again.  Eric Corbett 19:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd put it before since I thought it fitted better chronologically that way but either way. I did subsequently wonder whether to simply title it Beeston Castle hill given that I was aiming to describe the natural aspect of the site, and intend to add a little more in due course. In fact I may add a little just now. cheers Geopersona (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Chronology isn't always the best way to structure an article.  Eric Corbett 22:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)