Talk:Deddington Castle

Deddington Castle has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 30, 2013. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deddington Castle article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

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

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Expansion...

I've gone through and expanded the article a bit. The photographs don't quite bring out the scale and shape of the earthworks; when the UK summer returns, I'll try to get across there and get some clearer ones, but if anyone lives near Deddington, and fancies taking a camera out with them in the meantime, I'd be very grateful! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 08:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can I resist another castle (this time one I've never heard of)...? Will aim to complete sometime between Xmas and New Year. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox check -- No dab or EL issues.

Prose -- copyedited for verbiage, repetition, consistent tense, etc, so of course let me know if I've broken anything; outstanding points:

”granted out to sub-tenants” – is “granted out” a technical term or can we simply say “granted”, which sounds more pleasing to my ear at least?

Agree, much better. Changed. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

”In the early 12th century, additional earthworks were thrown up…” – aside from the vomitous terminology (which I know is normal language for this action), can we change this to something active, e.g. say who organised it? If unknown, feel free to leave as is, just thought I’d check...

Worth asking. No, unfortunately the owner of the castle is really uncertain around this period, and the dating is on the basis of the archaeology (which is pretty good for this period of the site in terms of dating, thanks to the stratification). Thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Structure/comprehensiveness -- seem quite okay to an admitted non-expert.

Referencing -- everything is sourced to what look like reliable references; only formatting issue is some Harv errors (should install Ucucha's script).

It's installed. I can't seem to get the system to accept the auto-linking to journals that spread over one year (the "1961-62" kind of date for a journal issue is throwing the coding for some reason I don't understand). Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird... Posted at the template's talk? Is someone looking at it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look a week or so back, and I think it was raised before, but inconclusively. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I won't hold back on passing as GA over a template, although if it were me I probably wouldn't use it until it was sorted. Admittedly the average WP reader won't have the script enabled but for those that do... Anyway, I'll leave that to you -- fine work as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting materials -- infobox and images licensing look fine.

Summary -- nothing really holding this back from GA, well done as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes.

I'm going to revamp the lead par, for quite important reasons. It's not true to say that Deddington Castle WAS a castle; officially, according to English Heritage, it still is. On the other hand, it quite clearly isn't. Many visitors turn up (sometimes having followed the signs, sometimes having made a special trip) and are disappointed or even angry to find that the site doesn't contain what they consider a castle. English Heritage won't change the name or the signs.

The article as it stands begins in the past tense, and then plunges straight into the history, only describing the site's present condition much later, and with a brief and not very helpful reference in the infobox. I propose to insert a new lead, describing the site as it is, before the historical background is explained. Hengistmate (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I've done that. Please study the new lead. Let's not have any knee-jerk reversions. It is important to stress the castle's current condition and put it in context. The lead now tells people what they will find, and the history can then be gone into. I've also removed some repetition brought about by the insertion of the new lead. Please feel free to improve .Hengistmate (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]