Talk:Calshot Castle/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) 16:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After Eric took a leave of absence (well documented elsewhere) I have taken over this review. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed comments to follow over the next day or so.

Thanks Eric. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a slight discrepancy in the writing. Compare for instance "In 1533, Henry broke with Pope Paul III .." with "In 1887 the Castle Yacht Club was established just beside the castle along the spit." My preference is not to have that initial comma, but we ought to at least be consistent.

I'm relaxed either way, but have added the extra comma in, as some editors seem to prefer it. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17th–19th centuries

"... taking advantage of the water behind the Calshot Split as a good location to position their waiting interception vessels." Is "Split" correct here, or should it be "Spit"?

Um, no... Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1900–45

"A new, lighter 'ladder' boom across Southampton Water was installed in 1907, but within two years this had been replaced by plans to block Southampton Water with a boom made up of floating hulks." How can you replace a boom with plans?

I've tweaked the wording a bit. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Calshot's remaining guns were removed and probably dispatched to the front line in France.". The lead says quite unequivocally that they were removed for use in France.

Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The threat of German invasion increased, however". Why do we have the easter egg link here, and is Operation Sea Lion explicitly mentioned in the source? Perhaps Battle of Britain would be a more appropriate link?

The Battle of Britain article covers the air war, not the German plans for landing ground forces in England, so I don't think it would be ideal as a link. Happy to take suggestions for a better wikilink for the German landing plans though! Hchc2009 (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we might be best off just leaving the link out? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article on RAF Calshot mentions the castle's role in assisting the D-Day landings. It cites this source, but that's self published and hence unsuitable for a GA; plus the prose in that article is either a copyvio or a reverse copyvio from the article - either way it's unsuitable and needs work. Nevertheless, I think it would be worth adding a cursory mention of D-Day in this article if such a source exists. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The airstation didn't actually do anything on D-Day that I can discover - other, than I presume, the usual mobilisation during the period. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source above, "ASR launches from Calshot took part in the D-Day landings, being positioned off the beach in readiness to rescue downed airman as soon as possible", though like I said that doesn't meet our usual requirements of reliable sources so I wouldn't take it as gospel. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd seen that one; the site's usually pretty good, but I can't find any confirmation from elsewhere. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1945–21st century

"before being passed across to Maintenance Command in 1953" - what is "Maintenance Command" in this context (the exact phrase is not in the source used). Also "1953" does not appear in the source given, how is this date verifiable?

It is in the cited sources - check Coad, 2006, p.113. Maintenance Command was a British military grouping; I've found a wiki page for it. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The site remains open to visitors and received 5,751 visitors in 2010" - have we got a more up to date source?

No - that's the latest I'm afraid. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discrepancy between "hanger" and "hangar" in this section. I assume you consistently mean "hangar" as in the shed to hold aircraft

Yep, will fix. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

"predominantly constructed of ashlar Portland stone - the source used says "squared Portland stone", is that a synonym?

Ashlar stone is the usual name for dressed, squared stone, yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"it was designed to carry three tiers of artillery positioned on the second floor and the roof of the central keep and in the outer curtain wall" - I find this sentence difficult to scan, I understand you mean that artillery was positioned on each of the three areas mentioned, but I think this sentence needs re-ordering

I've tweaked a bit - see if it reads better. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"sixteen-sided moat, 8.8 metres (29 ft) across" - I can't find these measurements in the Historic England source given, am I looking in the right place?

The Historic England sourced cited notes that: "The stone-lined moat which lies beyond the curtain wall is 16-sided, 2.6 deep and 8.8m wide." Hchc2009 (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Originally this would have held accommodation for the captain and the garrison, but was heavily developed in the 19th and 20th centuries" - developed into what exactly?

I've gone for "redeveloped" - the rest of the next two paragraphs gives quite a lot of detail on the 19th and 20th century changes. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've got any more comments on the article. In my view this is a well written and easy to understand article about an important south coast landmark. I am familiar with it as I used to work a few miles up the road near Hythe many years ago. I would normally be happy to put the review on hold pending the above comments, but I know Eric Corbett has reviewed more than six times as many GAs as I have, so I would hope he would be able to make further comments to make the article better. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Ritchie. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Eric has disappeared, I'll pass the review now. Worse case scenario is there are a few more copyedits, but I think that happens anyway as a matter of course. Well done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]