# Talk:Southampton Castle

Hi,
I'm very interested in making this a Good Article, I'm not from Southampton or nearby, and I've beeen trying to find some more information on the Castle. I found this website: 
http://www.ecastles.co.uk/southampton.html
I was scrolling through the current information and it seemed to vary. Can anybody help me make some sense. Shall we add this information. It may be false. 
Thanks,
pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

ecastles isn't a particularly authoritative site; it doesn't provide references for its claims on the original date of the castle, for example, which seems to be the main difference with the article. Worth noting that the picture shown on the website is part of the city walls (the Bargate, in this case), not Southampton Castle. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Yeah, thanks for replying! I didn't think it looked......True in a way! I thought I'd better confirm before I added the information. I think we'll give it a miss. Don't you?! Thanks for all help!!
Thanks again,
pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Pbl1998, I've just removed the last lot of material because it is too close to the original, copyrighted text. The original site, for example, talks about...
"The gap had been used for the tipping of rubbish from at least the late-medieval throughout the post-medieval period until the laying out of formal gardens on the site in the early-19th century."
It's far too close to this to then say in this article that...
"During the late and Post-Medieval times it was used as a rubbish tip until formal gardens were layed out on the site in the earl 19th century." Hchc2009 (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
If you can please reword the paragraph as I think it's good information and that it would be a waste if something from the sight, reworded of course, was on the page. Something to say about the gardens and houses! Do you see what I mean? If you do please reword it the way you would like! Like I've saide before, it would be a waste if you didn't! 
Thanks,
pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Southampton Castle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


### Initial comments
I'm sorry for the five-day delay. I've not been editing on wikipeida for most of that time, but I'm now working on this review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Having read through the article fairly quickly a couple of times my initial impression is that in general of article is at or about GA-level. The article seems to be well referenced and well illustrated, but the WP:Lead is rather poor and will probably need to be improved.
I'm now going to work my way through the article section by section, but leaving the Lead until last, and just highlight any "problems" that need addressing. However, I will return briefly to the lead: the words town and city tend to be used randomly/alternatively, I'm not sure which. The problem starts in the Lead and is (briefly) apparent in the 11th–13th centuries subsection, so I will comment on it there. 
It help me if comments/question/objections, etc, about a particular subsection/section are added immediately below (and signed) those comments of mine to which they refer, rather than "lumped together" at the end. Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

History -
11th–13th centuries -
There seems to be confusion over town and city. The first sentence clear states that Southampton was an relatively large town and in the second that it probably had a town hall. By the third sentence Southampton has become a city and "and the castle was built on rising ground in the north-west corner of the city" and for the rest of the paragraph its a city: well according Wikipedia (not a reliable source) Southampton became a city in 1964 (which is not 11th–13th centuries). I also suspect that the city of Southampton is considerably larger that the medieval town.
14th–15th centuries -
In the first two sentences of the first paragraph Southampton is now a town again, but in the third and fourth sentences it has become a city!!!
16th–19th centuries -
Looks OK.
WP:Lead -
I've somewhat changed my mine over the lead. Its intended function is to both introduce the article and summarise that main points; and in general it achieves that aim. In my opinion it has two minor "faults", both of which fall into the general category of WP:Vagueness, but they are quite easy to fix.
"Southampton Castle was located in the town of the same name in Hampshire, England." tends to suggest that the name  of the town is Southampton Castle - the wikilink leads to Southampton. It would be easier to state Southampton Castle was located in the town of Southampton, Hampshire, England.
The first sentence is contracted by the second sentence: "Southampton Castle was located in the town of the same name in Hampshire, England. Constructed after the Norman conquest of England, it was located in the north-west corner of the city overlooking the River Test, initially as a wooden motte and bailey design." Fairly trivial perhaps but this alternating use of town/city starts in the Lead and continues through the article.
At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through and corrected the "city" "town" distinction. It seems to be a problem in some of the literature too! I've added a note into the article to explain the transition, in case I've offended any Sotonians in the process.
Many thanks for the review, Hchc2009 (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. There is an intermediate history of County Borough, Town and County Borough, etc, which possibly could be added to the note; but historically Southampton was not a city for most of the duration of this historical structure. Pyrotec (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Well referenced.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Well referenced.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

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: 
Well illustrated.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an interesting and informative article. Pyrotec (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/birds-eye-view-of-southampton-showing-original-walls-tower17137
Quality not great mind.©Geni 06:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Spooky - I was looking the equivalent image in Hilary Turner's book yesterday (I'm writing an article on the town walls). It's one of Philiip Brannon's better pictures - he did some others of the area. I'd caveat that the details are mostly wrong (in 1856, almost none of the modern archaeology and historical research had been done), but I like it because it gets the sense of scale and colour across. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Also a rather poor painting of Landsdowne Castle:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/southampton-castle
©Geni (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)