# Talk:Penhallam

Why was this text removed ? - please discuss before removing further text.
In 1999 there was some controversy regarding this site and others under the care of the
English Heritage organisation. The Cornish Stannary Parliament wrote to English Heritage asking them to remove all signs bearing their name from Cornish sites by July 1999 as they regard the ancient sites as Cornish heritage, not English. Over eleven months eighteen signs were removed by members of the Cornish Stannary and a letter was sent to English Heritage saying "The signs have been confiscated and held as evidence of English cultural aggression in Cornwall. Such racially motivated signs are deeply offensive and cause distress to many Cornish people". (see external BBC link). *Cornish Stannary Parliament tackles cultural aggression in Cornwall  *BBC news - Historic signs case trio bound over
The bias of this paragraph is currently being discussed at Talk:Tintagel Castle Putney Bridge 23:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Penhallam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 01:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I will review, comments to follow over next few days. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Lead

"robbed for its stone": not crazy about "robbed" for an inanimate object, how about scavenged or stripped?
11th century

"either by a one Tryold": not sure if the "one" should be there.
12th-13th centuries

link Robert fitz William, Robert de Cardinham if possible. And is it William or Turold? If William, then it seems to come out of the blue.
14th-21st centuries

"The walls were robbed": as with the lead, not crazy with "robbed". Stripped may work better.
Newly exposed walls? The lead says foundations, and that these were unaltered from the medieval period.
Other stuff

The images appear to have appropriate tags
No dupe links
No DAB links
External links check OK
That's it for me, will check back in a few days for progress. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Zawed.
"Robbed" is the standard verb for removing stones out of walls (also known as "stone robbing").
"one Tyrold" - we don't have his other names, so I'm struggling to find a way of phrasing this without falling back on the "a one" phrase (which is certainly a method of communicating that). Alternatives welcomed, as it's not my favourite construction!
This article has pretty much exhausted the sources on William and Robert, so I doubt that that they're going to have their own articles any time soon... It is William, as surnames didn't really exist in early Anglo-Norman England. Richard Fitz Turold means "Richard, son of Turold", and Robert fitz William similarly means "Robert, son of William" - rather like the Arabic use of "ibn" today. Although once the Cardinhams started calling themselves by that name, these ancestors were were counted as part of the Cardinham family line.
I've had a go at rephrasing the exposed wall bit - see if it makes more sense now! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The changes to the article and the feedback on my comments satisfy me that this article is an appropriate standard for GA. I consider it covers the subject to a good standard using reliable sources. It is well written, appropriately illustrated and is stable. Passing now as GA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)