Talk:Burwell Castle

Military history: Fortifications / British / European / Medieval

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Swavesey?

In the details section, should Swavesay be Swavesey? --RE73 (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure - there are references to Swavesay and Swavesey in the literature. Do you reckon the latter is more common? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swavesey would make more sense I'd've thought... - JCJ (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wall & Excavations

The article could potentially be expanded with the information about the excavation available at http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=MCB14471&resourceID=1000 including the former curtain wall which the fire brigade accidentally knocked down when testing a fire hose in the late 1920's! >_> It also suggests that it ISN'T a motte & bailey. - JCJ (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding with the excavation info (and the spelling point above) sounds like a good idea. The bit about the motte and bailey on Pastscape, though, is dated from 1959, and I'd caution against its use - the more recent literature, cited in the article, argues persistently for the motte and bailey label. Indeed, further down the pastscape piece, they paraphrase the alternative view. If Renn had seen the aerial photo in Creighton's recent book (p.199) I think he might had had a different perspective! Hchc2009 (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're happy with the existing sources then I'm happy to go with it. It certainly feels as if there's a motte and a bailey when climbing over it, regardless of the sources :) - JCJ (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burwell 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304173013/http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8D12D531-55A4-4559-AC01-F0757E51EA45/0/EUSECambsBurwell.pdf to http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8D12D531-55A4-4559-AC01-F0757E51EA45/0/EUSECambsBurwell.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]