# Talk:Dolwyddelan Castle

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Dolwyddelan Castle from Railway Station.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It’s greatly improved, for which many thanks. I think I would mention its status as a Scheduled monument and a Grade I listed building, certainly in the body, and probably in the lead as well. You could also put the SM status in the info box. KJP1 (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Added it to infobox at least. DankJae 18:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look! I've mentioned the listing and scheduling in the lead, and thanks to @DankJae for sorting the infobox. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dolwyddelan Castle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mertbiol (talk · contribs) 20:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

 
This looks like a very interesting article. I have made some comments below. I haven't yet checked the sources, but will do this after the nominator has had a chance to respond to my initial feedback. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


### Infobox
I suggest reducing the precision of the coordinates to 4 decimal places (see MOS:COORDINATES). I think {{coord|53.0529|-3.9082|type:landmark|display=inline,title}} would work fine.
Please link Enclosure castle.
The term "enclosure castle" should appear in the main text. You have said "roughly circular enclosure", but the proper term should appear at least once in the main body (and preferably also in the lead section).
Please replace {{Circa|1210}}–{{Circa|1240}} with {{circa|1210|1240}}
The infobox states that the castle is built from "siltstone", but the "Architecture" section says that it is "constructed of local grit and slate rubble".
The infobox mentions an involvement in "Prince Madoc's Rebellion", but neither the rebellion nor the years 1294 and 1295 are mentioned in the main text.
The infobox states that Tomen Castell was built in the "eleventh century", but this is not mentioned in the main text.
The Tomen Castell part of the infobox also requires coordinates (use the setting |display=inline).
I think it would be clearer to separate the Dolwyddelan Castle and the Tomen Castell infoboxes. It may not look as neat, but it will be less confusing.


### Short description
The short description "Thirteenth-century Welsh-built castle in North Wales" is 52 characters long. WP:SDLENGTH says "Short descriptions exceeding 40 characters may be truncated in some contexts". I suggest changing back to "C13 castle in North Wales".


### Lead section
The lead section should mention Tomen Castell. Since Tomen Castell redirects to this article, the term should probably appear in bold type.
The first paragraph of the lead section should not be a single sentence.
"...is a fortifcation on the outskirts of the village of Dolwyddelan, in Conwy County Borough, North Wales" is not repeated in the main body and is not supported by a citation.
I suggest changing "fortification" to "enclosure castle" (first paragraph).
I suggest changing "on the outskirts of the village of" to "near" (first paragraph).
I suggest deleting "in order" (first sentence, second paragraph).
I suggest deleting "King" before "Edward I of England" (second sentence, second paragraph).
Please delete the comma after "Edward I of England in 1283" and please add commas either side of "despite being immediately refortified" (second sentence, second paragraph).
Please delete the comma after "grade I listed building in 1997" (final sentence, second paragraph).
Please delete the comma after "by either Edward I or Maredudd ab Ieuan" (third sentence, third paragraph).
Please delete the comma after "late thirteenth century by Llywelyn ap Gruffudd" (final sentence, third paragraph).


### History
I suggest rephrasing the first sentence so that it starts "Tomen Castell..." Please also mention the date of construction of Tomen Castell in the same sentence.
Please use the {{cvt}} template for unit conversions: {{cvt|8.8|by|9.5|m}} and {{cvt|2.3|-|2.95|m|adj=on}} (third sentence, first paragraph).
Please link Llywelyn the Great as this is the first mention in the main body of the article.
Reference [4] (The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales (1956)) appears twice at the end of the first paragraph.
Tomen Castell is mentioned on page 83 of reference [4] - not pages 80-82 as currently stated (end of first paragraph).
The second paragraph should start "Dolwyddelan Castle was likely built..."
I suggest deleting "which passes along the valley side between the river and the rocky knoll the castle stands on" - it's obvious that the road would be close to the castle.
If you have followed my suggestion to start the second paragraph with "Dolwyddelan Castle", please delete "at Dolwyddelan" to avoid repetition.
Please delete the second "rectangular" in the second sentence of the second paragraph to avoid repetition.
Please change the second "constructed" in the second sentence of the second paragraph to "built" to avoid repetition.
I suggest moving "Llywelyn also built the castles at Dolbadarn and Degannwy" to a footnote.
Please link "curtain wall" to curtain wall (architecture) (final sentence, second paragraph).
Please link "dressed stone" to ashlar (first sentence, third paragraph).
I suggest moving "who is known to have stayed at Dolwyddelan in August 1275, when he sent a letter to the prior of Valle Crucis Abbey from the castle" to a footnote (third sentence, third paragraph).
Please capitalise the "p" of "prior of Valle Crucis Abbey" (third sentence, third paragraph).
Please link "siege" (first sentence, fourth paragraph).
Please delete the comma after "The siege which brought the castle under English control did not last long" (first sentence, fourth paragraph).
In strict grammatical terms, the "its" in "negotiated its surrender" refers to the siege and not to the castle! (You may want to rephrase here to make sure that "the castle is the subject of the first half of the sentence.)
Please delete "After this" and start the second sentence of the fourth paragraph with "It was immediately refortified..."
Please delete "it is recorded that" (final sentence, fourth paragraph).
There are two similarly named constables mentioned in the fourth paragraph: Tudur ap Gruffudd and Gruffudd ap Tudur. There is a possibility that this could confuse readers. Please consider whether it is necessary to name both - neither is mentioned again in the article.
Please change "a member of a local gentry family" to "a member of the local gentry" (first sentence, fifth paragraph).
MOS:QUOTEMARKS states: "Most quotations take double quotation marks." Please change the single quote marks around 'captain' and 'outlaw' to double quote marks (second sentence, fifth paragraph).
Please delete the comma after "The country surrounding Dolwyddelan was unruly" (third sentence, fifth paragraph).
Please insert a comma after "although Maredudd built a new house nearby" (third sentence, fifth paragraph).
As Richard Avent is no longer alive, please change "considers it more likely" to "considered it more likely" (final sentence, fifth paragraph).
Please link Baron Willoughby de Eresby to Peter Drummond-Burrell, 22nd Baron Willoughby de Eresby - he was linked in the lead section, but this is the first occurrence in the main body (second sentence, final paragraph).
Please link battlement (second sentence, final paragraph).
Please link Cadw as this is the first occurrence in the main body (third sentence, final paragraph).
I suggest changing "in" to "for" in "as a location in the film" (final sentence, final paragraph).
Please change "The castle from above" to "Dolwyddelan Castle from the south-west" (image caption).


### Architecture
Please note my comment in the "Infobox" section of this review about the materials used to build the castle (first sentence, first paragraph).
Please link keep (second sentence, first paragraph).
This is the first time that you have referred to the east tower as the keep. Should this have been mentioned in the history section? It might avoid confusion with the west tower, if you consistently refer to the east tower as the keep? (See also my comment below on the figure caption for the third image in this section.)
Please correct "the oldest part of the Dolwyddelan" (second sentence, first paragraph).
The fourth sentence of the first paragraph is very long. Counting from the semicolon, the second part (starting "the work included...") has 48 words. Please split this into two.
The "it" in "it now has a height of 12 m" (final sentence, first paragraph) refers in strict grammatical terms to "the work" in the previous sentence and not to the keep.
Please link gable and embrasure (second paragraph).
Please add a comma after "as the second-floor windows also date from this reconstruction" (final sentence, second paragraph).
Please change "The east wall stands to a height of approximately 7.9 m (26 ft)" to "The east wall is approximately 7.9 m (26 ft) high" (second sentence, third paragraph).
Please link "jambs" (third sentence, third paragraph).
Should the "that" in "are similar to that used at Conwy Castle" be "those" (third sentence, third paragraph)?
Please delete the comma after "no evidence of an internal stair" (final sentence, third paragraph).
Please insert commas either side of "if one existed" (final sentence, third paragraph).
It might be worth linking gatehouse (second sentence, final paragraph).
Please delete the comma after "gatehouse" (second sentence, final paragraph).
Please eliminate the repetition in "across the rock-cut ditch which cuts across the rock" (second sentence, final paragraph).
Please change "There is another ditch on the south-west of the knoll" to "There is another ditch on the south-western side of the knoll" (third sentence, final paragraph).
I think the third image is of the ruinous west tower and not the east tower (keep). Please correct the caption.


### Public access
There's no mention of whether the castle is open to visitors. Is the land privately or publicly owned? Is there an entrance fee? Are entrance hours restricted? The location of the castle ("on the outskirts of the village of Dolwyddelan, in Conwy County Borough, North Wales" - see my comment on the lead section) could be mentioned here too.


### External links
I suggest linking to the Cadw page for the castle.


### Stopping here for now
Over to @A.D.Hope: Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Mertbiol!
Thank you for all of your comments and suggestions, they were very helpful and I've been working through them over the past few days. I've implemented them all bar a few, and I also have a few comments and questions:
'Enclosure castle' — several sources mention an enclosure but none explicitly call Dolwyddelan an enclosure castle. I’m also struggling to find a good source for the term so that it can be applied to the castle. I’ll continue looking, but would it be best to remove the term if no source appears?
IMO we could manage with just describing is as a castle rather than an enclosure castle. There is a tendency in castle studies to construct typologies, almost over-typologise. 'Enclosure castle' is a term that is sometimes used, but unless a source explicitly describes Dolwyddelan as such I'd be tempted to leave it out. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I’m not sure the location needs a specific citation, as it’s verified in many of the sources and unlikely to be challenged.
The medieval road, I’ve realised, did not follow the same course as the modern road and so I’ve changed that passage to explain this.
I’ve linked to curtain wall (fortification) rather than curtain wall (architecture), as the latter is about modern curtain walls.
My understanding is that ‘prior' is a generic term in this instance and so should be lowercase.
Removed the name of the first constable but kept the second, as the record of him is the reason we know the castle was still garrisoned in 1290.
Removed reference to gentry entirely, I think it may be anachronistic.
My preference is to use the ‘literary present’ when quoting a work unless context dictates otherwise, so I’d like to keep ‘Avent considers’.
I think the photo of the castle was taken from the west, but I’ve changed that sentence in the caption any case.
I’m not inclined to mention specific opening hours or admission fees as they’re liable to change without notice, meaning the article could easily become outdated. It would be convenient for the reader if the Cadw website’s Dolwyddelan page was linked in ‘External Links’, but that’s technically against WP:EL as it’s cited in the body. What do you think?
I'd leave out opening hours as they do change, but I can see that mentioning that it is a free site has encyclopedic value as it indicates other sites generate income from entrance fees. Perhaps a general statement along the lines of 'the external areas of the site are typically open to the public, with the interior open on select days' would be enough? Richard Nevell (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Related, I see there was a minor spat about reopening the castle post-Covid, [1]. Not necessarily worth mentioning, however. KJP1 (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
As I’ve been tidying up the article I’ve also found a few things to include —  the use of the Lledr valley as cattle pasture by the Welsh princes, some extra info on the castles built by Llywelyn the Great, and the name of Maredudd ab Ieuan’s house. I’ve also corrected a couple of errors, such as the location and direction of the road. The Tomen Castle infobox has been fleshed out a bit, but I've since wondered if it's entirely necessary as the paragraph on the tower isn't long and very little needs summarising. Finally, the formatting of the citations and sources needed an overhaul before your review so I've begun that.
Thank you again for undertaking the review, and roll on round two! A.D.Hope (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @A.D.Hope: I can see you've done a lot of intense work on the article! I'll read through again and will get back to you with more comments over the weekend. Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


#### Comments from KJP1
I think the article is looking very good overall, and the detailed comments in the review will certainly improve it further. I've only a few thoughts.

Lead
Grade I and Scheduled Monument status - as the lead is a summary of the body, I think the building's dual heritage status should be mentioned in the body, as well as in the lead, although I appreciate it is in the Infobox. A short sentence - "Dolwyddlelan Castle is a Grade I listed building and a Scheduled monument" - with the Cadw/Coflein citations, could go either at the end of History or at the end of Architecture.
Tomen Castell - for me, the close mentions of Tomen Castell (Castell Tomen?) and Tomen Castle are a little confusing, assuming they are the same structure. Perhaps make the mention at the end of the first para. read "Tomen Castle (Castell Tomen)" and the second something like, "It superseded Tomen, the small tower possibly built by Llywelyn's father."
History
There's a gap of about 300 years in the History, from the mid-16th to the 19th century. It may be there's nothing to say, and the castle just mouldered away, but I wonder if the guidebook has anything at all?
Page 21 of the guidebook, which covers the later history of Dolwyddelan along with Dolbadarn and Castell y Bere jumps straight from Maredudd an Ieuan to the mid-18th century by which time the castle was in ruins. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Richard - thanks very much for looking in. If there’s nothing in the books, then there’s nothing in the books! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

"The castle was partially restored and reconstructed between 1848 and 1850 by Baron Willoughby de Eresby" - I think it would be worth explaining de Eresby's connection to the castle/area. This [2] details his ownership of the Gwydir Estate, and the Gwydir Castle page, which gives more details, would make a useful bluelink. On a related point, and excepting that I may well be wrong, I think the preferred form is Lord Willoughby de Eresby.
"the guardianship of the Ministry of Works; it is now under the protection of its successor, Cadw" - accepting that Cadw inherited some of the Ministry's responsibilities, I'm not sure Cadw can be described as "its successor". I think that would be the DoE. Perhaps, "it is now under the protection of Cadw, the Welsh Government's historic environment agency", or some such.
Sources
ISBNs - where we've not got one, I tend to use the OCLC. So, for example, Sir John Wynn's History of the Gwydir Family would have 57503225, [3]. On a related point, you've a mix of 10 and 13-digit ISBNs. No issue for GA, but if you plan on FAC at any point, you'll need a consistent approach. Same with whether you hyphenate them or not.
Cadw - super-picky but it's bluelinked at 3 of the 4 uses, but not in the second. Either all, or just the first.
External links
[4] - This may be worth adding as it is some rather good images.
And I think that's about it from me. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope: I've just seen the comments from KJP1 above. Can I suggest that you work through these? Once you're done, please ping me and I'll start the second part of my review. Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely, no problem at all. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, this is all very helpful and I appreciate you taking the time to make the suggestions. I'll have a look through them now. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Everything you suggested has been done as far as possible, I just have a couple of comments:
'Tomen Castell' is the name for the tower in both English and Welsh, 'Tomen Castle' was a mistake on my part.
As Richard has explained it really does seem that nothing much happened at Dolwyddelan between Maredudd ap Ieuan and Lord Willoughby, but I have managed to flesh that period out a little by mentioning some of the antiquarians and artists who passed by in the 18th and 19th centuries.
I'm not entirely happy with the flow of the final paragraph of 'History', if you have any suggestions.
In 'Sources' I've added OCLC references and standardised the ISBNs, but there are a few works which proved tricky: the Buck print, which I'm not sure will be catalogued as it's an engraving; Pennant's Tour in Wales, where the exact edition hosted by the National Library doesn't seem to be catalogued; and the Welsh Dictionary of National Biography, which is effectively an online resource but whose entries would originally have been published in print.
The Cadw bluelinks are part of the template in 3 of the 4 examples. I'd prefer to only link the first occurence, but that's not possible so I've linked them all.
Cheers again, A.D.Hope (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh! I've also removed the Tomen Castell infobox to see how it 'feels'. I'm leaning toward it being redundant to have one, but still not sure. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@A.D.Hope: @KJP1: I am not sure where things stand. Are you ready for me to pick up the review again? Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm quite happy to keep going, but if KJP1 would like to respond to my comments before we move on that's absolutely fine. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely! Mine were just drive-by comments, and I'm fine with A. D. Hope's responses. Nothing to stand in the way of you progressing/finalising your review. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


### Sources check
I have checked the following sources: [1] (see comment below), [2], [3] (see comment below), [4], [5], [6], [7], [9] (see comment below), [10], [11], [12], [14], [15], [16] (see comment below), [20] (see comment below), [21], [24], [25] (see comment below), [28], [29], [30] (see comment below), [31] and [32].

[1] - Barnwell (1883) gives the dimensions "forty feet by twenty-five" (page 52). Can we be confident that the "forty feet" is indicating the height, rather than the width/depth?
[3] - there is a discrepancy between the dimensions given by Cadr ("perhaps 6m x 6.7m") and Coflein ("roughly 8.8m by 9.5m"). I note you've gone with the Coflein dimensions, which are dated June 2008, rather than the undated Cadr dimensions (which may be from the original designation in August 1988).
[9] - there appears to be a stray "&" before "Avent".
[16] - the page numbers for Taylor (1986) are missing - I presume that these should be pp. 45 and 45?
[20] - I think there is an error in the page numbers for Avent (2004). Should these be pp. 18 and 21 (not 18 and 20)?
[25] - the page numbers for Avent (2004) are missing.
[30] - I think there is an error in the page numbers for Avent (2004). Should these be pp. 26-28 (not 8)?


### Comments on the text
Infobox - I suggest removing "enclosure castle" if the formal term is not mentioned in any of the sources.
Lead section, second paragraph - please link keep.
History, second paragraph - please link keep.
History, third paragraph - "constructed" occurs three times and "construction" once. I suggest replacing the third "constructed" with "built".
History, footnote [c] - Per MOS:PEOPLETITLES and MOS:JOBTITLE - "Prior of Valle Crucis Abbey" is a "globally unique title" (c.f. "President of the United States") and so the "p" of prior should be capitalised in this instance. If "prior" was on its own (without the institution), then it would be being used generically and would not have a captial "p".
History, third paragraph - I suggest replacing "Alternatively, the tower..." with "Alternatively, it..."
History, fourth paragraph - I suggest deleting "being" from "being supplied with a siege engine".
History, fourth paragraph - I suggest inserting "was" into "and occupied by an English garrison".
History, fifth paragraph - please add a comma after "The building was partly habitable"
Architecture, first paragraph - please replace "reconstructing" with "rebuilding" to reduce repetition.
Architecture, second paragraph - "The tower is entered..." sounds a bit "guidebooky". Could you rephrase to make this a little more formal please?
Architecture, second paragraph - please replace one instance of "reconstruction" with "rebuilding" to reduce repetition.
Architecture, second paragraph - I suggest breaking the final sentence in two at the semicolon (i.e. replacing the semicolon with a full stop).
Architecture, third paragraph - I suggest adding "floor" after "with a single chamber on each".
Architecture, third paragraph - I suggest either linking "timber" to lumber or replacing timber with wood.
Architecture, third paragraph - I suggest moving the third image in the gallery so that it is positioned to the right of this paragraph.
All of these are very minor points, so I will put the review "on hold". Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all the recommendations. This process is really showing me that, no matter how good you think your self-copyediting is, a second pair of eyes is always needed! Some comments:
[1] I don't think we can be sure, and despite searching I've not been able to find any other source for the tower heights. Although a height is nice to have I'm quite happy to remove the statment since it can't be supported.
[3] Coflein's numbers do seem to be more reliable as they reference the 1962-3 excavations. I don't know why Cadw don't use the excavation's measurements, but I think their guess at the size can be safely ignored.
Footnote [c]: I still think 'prior' is lowercase, which is common practice and is how the title is formatted in the guidebook. I do find that subsection of the MOS confusing rather than helpful, so the Wikipedia rule may well be different.
History 4: Rather than adding 'was' before 'and occupied by...' I've inserted a comma and turned the sentence into a list.
Architecture 3: I did move the third gallery image to the position you suggest, but it made the text look rather hemmed in. I've instead put it adjacent to the third para of 'History', as that paragraph discusses the tower and the history section was a bit sparse image-wise.
I've made all the other corrections from both of your most recent comments. All the best, A.D.Hope (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


### Final verdict
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

This is a very interesting and informative article. It is well written and appears to cover all aspects of the castle in depth. Congratulations to @A.D.Hope: for their hard work to bring this nomination forward. Thanks also to @KJP1: and @Richard Nevell: for their input into this review. I have no hesitation in promoting it to GA status. Well done!!! 
I wondered if you had considered taking this article towards FAC? My recommendation would be to submit an A-Class review request at Wikiproject Military history. The MilHist wikiproject is one of the few that functions efficiently and its participants are generally very good at picking up and contributing to peer reviews. This article is well within the scope of their project and there are quite a few people knocking around with an interest in medieval warfare who could comment on it. In my humble opinion, you could easily submit an A-class review request immediately without any further work on the article, if that's what you wanted to do.
Good luck with whatever you choose to work on next and I hope our paths cross again soon. Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much, @Mertbiol, you've put a lot of work into this yourself and have been a wonderful editor to work with. I'd also like to thank @KJP1, @Richard Nevell, and @DankJae, who hasn't been as visible here on the review page but who has also helped. You're a great bunch. My first GA, how's about that?
I think I will submit an A-Class review, as I'm on a bit of a roll and it would be good to keep up that momentum. Thank you for suggesting it, and here's to working together again in the future! All the best, A.D.Hope (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

"Predates" is shorter than  "was built before". It means the same thing, and it is adequately separated by its context here from the homograph describing the act of predation.  But it is also a more learned and much rarer usage over which, I suspect, many of its intended audience will stumble briefly. At this edit it has been reinstated. I suggest that we should change "predates" to "was built before". Comments? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. Normally I also prefer the simplest forms, avoiding a "learned" word if another simpler expression expresses the same (even when I personally fully understand the "learned" form). But in this case, I personally feel "predates" is better. While English is my second language, I have seen the word "predates" many times and completely understand its meaning (even though my native language, Danish, doesn't have a word for it). So, surprisingly to me, I lean somewhat towards "predates" over "was built before". But I have no strong opinion about it. Jhertel (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure how we'd go about assessing how well the word is understood, but I think it falls into the vocabulary a general reader with some interest in the subject would understand (which is why I reverted it). A.D.Hope (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Support 'predates'. I prefer predated rather than post-dated in another circumstance as well!SovalValtos (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales § Cadw's renaming of castles.  Concerning the bolding and formatting of the Welsh name in this article following its adoption by Cadw. DankJae 20:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)