Talk:Cooling Castle/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cooling Castle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cooling Castle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 06:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


I'll read through today and start the review proper tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

  • Made a few minor copy-edits. Don't see any reason to fail GAN in this respect. FactotEm (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree, up to scratch. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

(c) it contains no original research.

  • None found so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

  • Yes. There are a few bits that could be expanded for A Class or FAC, but fine at GA. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

  • "Ordnance Survey map of Cooling Castle" - could usefully be dated (things may have changed since 1964)
  • "Sir Thomas Wyatt, who seized and destroyed Cooling Castle on 30 January 1554" - is "destroyed" quite the right word...? Hchc2009 (talk)

Status query

Where does this review stand at the moment. Hchc2009 is the listed reviewer, yet FactotEm has been both editing the article (in the absence of nominator Prioryman, who has not been active on Wikipedia over the past several months) and adding comments as if they are the reviewer. Since Hchc2009 opened the review, they are the reviewer of record and the person responsible for the ultimate decision of passing or failing the nomination, though FactotEm's thoughts (and edits!) are most welcome. Hchc2009, where does the review stand, and what work remains to be done to bring this up to GA level? (If you don't plan on doing a comprehensive review, please let us know that.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I left a note on Hchc2009's talk to advise him that I got involved, but no answer. He's still the official reviewer as far as I'm concerned, and I think it right to defer to him unless he says otherwise. FactotEm (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrecked

I don't exactly know why but "wrecked" doesn't quite work for me in the context of a castle. Maybe it's too informal or maybe it's just not what I am expecting to hear of a stone building as opposed to, say, a vehicle. Anyway, I am going to try changing it and, of course, if you don't like what I've done, revert away and let's discuss it! Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I found and added a source that explicitly states the castle was "badly damaged" and subsequently allowed to fall into disrepair, and edited the article to reflect this. FactotEm (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks very much. DBaK (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Current status

In the Current Status section, is there any more detail or clarity could be added, please? I suppose what I am thinking in one sense is "if it's in bad condition, who is that down to and what are they doing about it"? I don't feel quite clear on the three listed ownerships - do they between them account for the entire site and if so how; what is in such bad condition and who owns it; we say the bridge commission owned one chunk for many years but we don't say whether they still do; and so on. I don't feel as if I could stand there and point to a bit (unless it was the wedding barn or Jules's house!) and say "that's the bit in peril and it is owned by X" with much certainty. Finally, is any of the site visitable? Maybe we could make this clear, in case, like me, others are thinking they'd like to go and look at it!

Great article, congratulations on all the hard work, and I hope these comments might help a little. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added a sentence on public access. FactotEm (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Most helpful, thank you. DBaK (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cooling_Castle/Archive_1&oldid=1161785243"