Talk:Beeston Castle

message: #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)
thread_title:  Assessment Report 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Completely agree.  I think the Manchester article looks very good. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  ... 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: The castle was partially demolished during the civil war, did it lie derelict after this? Nev1 (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image layout problem 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Towards GA 

message: 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:  
#:: 
#: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: 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass or Fail: 
#::  Bláthnaid 14:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article review 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I've been bold and done it. The original one was a bit washed out anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Chronology isn't always the best way to structure an article.  Eric Corbett 22:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology