# Talk:Weeting Castle

This review is transcluded from Talk:Weeting Castle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 06:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


### Quick fail criteria assessment
The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.


### Main review
1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose):

Lead

"by Hugh de Plais" — Who was he?
I can't find a RS for a simple description; I'd assume he was an Anglo-Norman lord, but that's just my own OR. :)
"comprising a three-storey tower" — Should be "and comprises..."
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
"a service block" — What is a service block?
It's the standard term for a grouping of rooms in medieval architecture that supported the hall, solar etc. with domestic services - depending on the situation, it might comprise a pantry, buttery etc.. It doesn't have a wiki article, unfortunately.
I think you should explain what this is somewhere, perhaps in the "10th–13th centuries" section. You could also consider making a service block stub and linking it.
I've added an explanatory note and reference. Hchc2009 (talk)
"and instead formed" — I don't think you need the "instead".
I think it's necessary to show that a domestic dwelling at the time wasn't fortified.
"owned by Hugh's feudal lord" — Why refer to him by his first name?
*No particular reason - it's quite a common style in medieval history though. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
"Weeting Castle ceased to be used in the late 14th century" — This makes a bit of a jump. What was it used for in the 13th? Also, I would make this the start of a new paragraph.
I've added in the para break, but I'm not sure there's much more to usefully add on the 13th century. Hchc2009 (talk)
"in the grounds" — Should probably be "on the grounds".
Not sure I understand why? Hchc2009 (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Not a big issue, but they're primarily on top of the ground, not inside of it.
"in the grounds" is the more common version in English; "grounds" means an estate, not the actual "ground" btw! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Infobox: Can you add dates and owners, and perhaps materials?
I've added the materials and date; I'm not convinced the owners will add much. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
10th-13th centuries

First off, I think that hyphen in the section header should be an en dash (same with 14th-21st).
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Image: Very useful image, but can we get a compass? Where's the kitchen? What's the square below the chamber block? And why is the ice house drawn differently than the other buildings?
We don't know where the kitchen was exactly. The square is part of the chamber block. The ice house is brick covered by a mound of earth and therefore follows the mapping convention for earth. Hchc2009 (talk)
Got it. I still recommend a compass, as the text uses cardinal directions to describe aspects of the castle.
Added one onto the image. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
"in Norfolk." — I would add "in Norfolk, England", so England isn't only in the lead.
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
"by Hugh de Plais." — Again, just who was Hugh?
As per above. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
"Hugh acquired" — First name again.
As per above. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
"Following the 1964-66 archaeological investigations" — Since you haven't mentioned the excavations yet, I would say "Following archaeological investigations in 1964–66." Also, en dash needed.
* Changed. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
"phases - the ... times - and" — Em dashes needed.
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
"undercroft" — I would link to undercroft.
It's already linked above; with a longer article, I'd be inclined to repeat it, but here it feels unnecessary. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
"The historian Thomas "Sandy" Heslop argued against this interpretation" — When?
It's cited, but I've added the date in the footnote as well.
"Hugh's manor house" — first name again.
As per above.
"solar - a set of private chambers - above" — Em dashes needed.
Added.
"It would have been" — "It" technically refers to the ground floor, not the solar.
Clarified.
The hall — It's unclear what would have been on the first floor, and what would have been on the second. Also, would it have been connected to the tower? How was the second floor accessed?
Hopefully clarified now.
"blind stone arcading" — What does blind stone mean?
Blind arcarding is arcading that is set against a wall.
You could link to blind arcade.
Done. Hchc2009 (talk)
"The hall was probably linked by doors to the service block to the south" — You mean north?
Yep, fixed.
The service block — This is never described.
Apart from the size, which is given, there isn't much information on it; I've added in what a service block contains though.
Do you know for sure that the Weeting Castle service block contained a pantry and a buttery, or just that service blocks generally contained those? If the latter, you should say "and likely contained a pantry and a buttery."
As per the source... Hchc2009 (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
"accessed by a bridge." — Should clarify that it is the West entrance, since the image shows two crossings but the causeway isn't mentioned until the next section.
"west" added
"for any one" — Should be "anyone".
done.
14th-21st centuries

"Weeting Castle passed to Sir John Howard" — Is the year known?
I don't think so.
"The manor house was left to fall into ruin, until in 1770 it became an ornamental feature in the grounds of the nearby Weeting Hall" — Meaning the owner of Weeting Hall purchased the land on which the castle was located? Was anything done with it at this point, or was it still left in ruin? If the latter, "until" should be another word.
I don't think the source mentions what was done with it (if anything) to make it an ornamental feature. Recommendations for an alternative word welcomed!
"Weeting Hall ... the moat." — Bit of a run-on.
Seems better than two fairly stubby sentences here
"have also survivd" — Typo.
Fixed.
"nothing remains of the kitchen above ground." — Anything below ground?
Unknown - it wasn't excavated.
"The moat still partially floods in winter" — How was it filled when functional?
The sources don't say. There is some possible evidence for culverts, or similar works, on the north-east corner, but they haven't been dated.
"a earth" — Should be "an earth".
Fixed.
"the heritage agency Historic England noting" — Suggest "while the heritage agency Historic England notes".
Have gone for a variant - see if you think it works
"it is protected under UK law as a scheduled monument." — Since when? Also, I would make this its own sentence.
1981, but it's not a significant fact (you wouldn't usually mention it outside of the formal listing statement). I've gone for a single sentence, as the reason for the listing are the qualities highlighted by the quotes.
Not a big deal, but I'd suggest something along the lines of "it has protected under UK law as a scheduled monument since 1981." Personally, I find it interesting to see when monuments are determines to be significant enough for protection, and for the same reason included it in an article I wrote (Benty Grange helmet#Discovery).
The date isn't something that reliable sources tend to mention when describing buildings like this. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
b (MoS):
 — Just a few issues (e.g., en/em dashes), addressed above.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references):

A lot of the references are repeated, which clutters and confuses the reference list. I would suggest moving the repeated references to the bibliography, and using short footnotes for them. Alternatively, you could make the reference list a lot shorter by only using one reference per footnote.
I'm happy with the citation style as it is.
En dashes needed between page numbers, not hyphens (e.g., "pp. 50–51", not "pp. 50-51").
Done.
Blomefield 1805: Available online (out of copyright), I would add a link.
Still suggested.
Cushion/Davison, Gardiner/Kilby: Suggest adding "lastauthoramp=yes" parameter.
What does it do?
It separates the authors by an ampersand (e.g., "Cushion, Brian & Davison, Alan" instead of "Cushion, Brian; Davison, Alan"), which makes the distinction between authors a little more clear. Not a big deal.
Heslop 2000: Does Architectural History have an ISSN?
Added.
Emery 2000: Hyphenated ISBN is 978-0-521-58131-8.
Added.
b (citations to reliable sources):
 — Sources appear reliable

c (OR):
 — No OR seen

d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations):
 — Nothing major, although "a status symbol rather than" could stand to be tweaked slightly.

Still hasn't been rephrased. Also, the copying of the phrase makes clear that the listing entry was used as a source for this sentence, but it is not included in citation [14].
The line is cited to English Heritage, which supports the claim: it says that the moat's "primary purpose was not defensive, however; it was built to demonstrate the wealth and power of the de Plais family" - an item which demonstrates wealth and power is typically called a status symbol. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Hchc2009, it's sourced to this source, but it's copied from this one. The latter source should be added to the footnote, and the following copying should be slightly modified:
Article: "The moat was a status symbol, rather than a defensive work"
Source: "a moat intended as a status symbol rather than a practical military defence" --Usernameunique (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Try the tweaked version. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
3. It is broad in its scope.

a (major aspects):
 — Just a few things noted above, regarding the description of the hall and service block.

b (focused):
 — Article is focused.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy
 — Article is neutral.
5. It is stable
 — Article is stable.
6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 — Images are appropriately tagged.

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 — Images need alt text.

Not a GA requirement. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
7. Overall: 

Pass/Fail:  — Cool article, Hchc2009. Most of the review is above; feel free to disregard stylistic points you disagree with. Only thing remaining on my end is to check the references, which I will do soon. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hchc2009, no rush, but just letting you know I've checked the references (see above) and finished the review. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Hchc2009, what your status on this? It's been a month and a half with little movement. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Usernameunique, I have suggested elsewhere that you give seven more days for some movement on this, and close it if no real progress is made. You have been more than generous with the time you have allowed to pass. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Hchc2009, thanks for the response. I've replied above. There's nothing major, but if it's possible to add a compass to the diagram, I would strongly recommend it; it's a bit hard to understand the diagram as is (my eyes had to constantly wander back and forth between the image and the caption), and the description constantly gives cardinal directions that have to be inferred. Also, you're right that alt text is not a requirement, but there's no reason not to add it, especially if you're thinking of taking this to FAC. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hchc2009, it's been another two weeks since my last comment; your response is being waited on. This has become far beyond reasonable. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment Coming up to three months since this was started. It looks like the only things remaining are not GA requirements. Is there anything stopping this from being passed? AIRcorn (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea why this hasn't been passed.  No action since January/February/ so, after reading it and the comments, @Usernameunique: I don't see why this cannot be passed.  Let me know.  This editor often gets waylaid by real life, so ....   auntieruth (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Aircorn & Auntieruth55, I'm limited for time until the end of tomorrow, but will take another look and reply by then if not sooner. The predominant reason for the delay has been the extremely long time time taken to respond to each of rounds of responses (three months just to respond to my initial review). --Usernameunique (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Went through and made the remaining changes myself. These include the addition of ALT text and a URL for Blomefield 1805. I would further suggest that Hchc2009 add an "N" atop the compass, but it's a small issue, and this has dragged on long enough. Passing. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)