Wikipedia:Peer review/Dunnottar Castle/archive1

Dunnottar Castle

i am seeking peer review at the request of a wikipedian colleague. no interest in FAC, just want to make this a better article. i would be quite interested in any other historical facts, especially documentary referenced material. sometimes its difficult to dig out all the literature from the middle ages. this topic has been a daunting one because the castle is virtually a national symbol of Scotland. (See lead photo at Scotland in the Middle Ages, a photo i didnt take or place on that site! to understand that Dunnottar is quite a national icon for Scotland.) Anlace 19:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use (&)nbsp(;) between numbers of units of measurements (like 160 feet -> 160 feet). Thanks, AndyZ 02:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks andyz Anlace 03:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and now another user changed it back to the way i had it...good grief..which is wikipedia style?Anlace 15:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a decent article, but it raised so many questions. The introduction states that the castle was built during the 13th century. The "middle ages" starts off by stating that King Domnall II died there, and William Wallace had a battle at that spot. But the first actual description of the castle states that in 1336 it was in ruins. So who built it? Why was it built at that location? Was it actually occupied by any royalty? What nearby town or village provided the logistics? If it played a central role in the history of Scotland, did it occupy a strategic position? Or was there some other reason? (It sounds like it is off in the middle of nowhere.) Could you use consistent metric units? (m²(?) as well as acres.) Finally, do you have a closeup picture of the main castle? Thanks!!! =) — RJH 16:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good questions rjhall. heres what ive done

built by caledonians before 84AD, rebuilt in 13th cent by persons unknown

why this location: text now explains strategic location

occupied by royalty. text expands on the earlier references to royals. basically no kings or queens are known to have lived here for any lenght of time. but many stayed here. text now is fairly complete on the particulars.

metric units now consistent

closeup pics. dont have any but will get by mid 2006 and add then

thanks for the stimulating and substantive questions that led to much improvement Anlace 00:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your looking for easily-accessed sources try looking through these and this book may prove valuable if you can find it. --maclean25 17:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i have consulted your sources. i had read most of them previously, but one was most interesting that i hadnt seen: the cowan paper that came out in 2005. that was most helpful and ive added to the text on earlier history. thanks very much for your help maclean Anlace 00:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment was found on the redirect page Wikipedia:Peer review/Dunnotar Castle and moved here as a public service.--Russ Blau (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:
- At this location is the imposing gatehouse with apparent medieval defensive devices lurking for attackers treading up the cobblestone entrance road - Perhaps this sentence could be re-written in a more encyclopaedic style? Imposing and lurking are the words which jump out at me as not quite appropriate.
- Mariscal held the fortress, in spite of tragic devastation - "Tragic devastation" isn't an objective enough term for Wikipedia articles
- At about this same time in history Covenanters had been opposing the Bishops of Aberdeen and staged an important meeting in nearby Muchalls Castle. Events at Dunnotar and Muchalls Castles were to prove an important turning point in the English Civil War, and to promote willingness of the monarchy to come to terms with the ideals of the Covenanters. - two uses of the terms "important" - this should be qualified or supported in some way - see WP:PEACOCK
- The Dunnottar fortress was defended bravely by a scant but plucky garrison of 80 men - Not NPOV
- Many of them perished in this inhumane and squalid setting' - again, not NPOV.

SP-KP 14:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i just found the above comment posted on the proper page. ive fixed some of the points you've raised and will study the others more carefully as i have time. some of your remarks are problematic {eg the words "lurking" and "squalid" are extremely accurate depictions of the historicalaccounts.