Talk:Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good article Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd has been listed as one of the Art and architecture 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.
Good topic star Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd is the main article in the Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 31, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
February 19, 2013 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article


I've gone through and given the article a bit of a scrub over and expansion. In doing so, I have reused some material from the wikipedia articles Conwy Castle, Conwy town walls, Caernarfon Castle, Caernarfon town walls, Harlech Castle and Beaumaris Castle, which involve the work of the multiple authors listed on the history lists of those pages. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 15:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be glad to this review. I'll do a close readthrough of the article over the next day or two, then begin the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one--looking forward to working with you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Will get onto working these through tomorrow - in the meantime, thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that's them all done - very many thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

First readthrough[edit]

This is really excellent work. The article is clear and readable, thorough without being overdetailed, and includes a fair amount of scholarship while also remaining understandable to a nonexpert (me) whose primary knowledge of castles comes from playing Dungeons and Dragons as a kid. So far I only see small points that need attention:

  • "the sites' roles as palaces and symbols of royal power have been increasingly recognised" consider avoiding the passive voice here, but definitely add in whoever is doing the recognising: scholars, tourists, UNESCO officials?
  • " Llwelyn exploited the civil war in England" As an American largely ignorant of British history, when I see "the civil war in England", I think Oliver Cromwell; maybe "a civil war" would be a better phrase here to be clear that it's not The Civil War? (Not a required action point, just a suggestion)
  • " Caernarfon had been prized by its former Welsh as an important Roman site" -- this phrase confused me. Have the Welsh been driven from this city? Perhaps add a word like inhabitants.
  • " his close friend Otto de Grandson" -- it's a bit ambiguous if this is Edward or James's friend
  • "Beaumaris fared less well, being placed under siege and captured by the rebels in 1403, being retaken by royal forces in 1405" -- this sentence reads awkwardly; perhaps it would be better to use a semicolon here or otherwise break this into two sentences.
  • "began for the first time" -- seems a bit redundant
  • "to maintain their historical fabric" -- I'm not clear what is meant by "historical fabric" here. Are we talking literally about fabric (such as tapestries), or in a broader metaphorical sense of materials? It's also not clear if this was a one-time cost or an ongoing cost. (If ongoing, perhaps say something like "In 2002, for example, it cost...")
  • "The fortifications were in some regards simply too big, and smaller projects might actually have been more effective." -- I'd suggest attributing the source of this opinion in-text in addition to the footnote already there, since this does verge on being opinion.
  • "Recent research, however, has suggested that Master James' role, and Savoyard influence more generally, may have been overstated" -- Rephrase to avoid this statement going out of date ("Early 21st-century research suggested", "a 2007 paper stated", etc.)
  • " the Gate next the Sea" -- is this phrasing correct (i.e., is this the Gate's official title)? Perhaps quotation marks around this gate's name would make it clearer; the syntax threw me for a moment.
  • "Other Edwardian castles in Wales" -- I would suggest finding a way to get rid of or otherwise integrate this two-sentence section. One possibility would be to simply list these as "see also"; another option would be to include it in the "background" section. A third possibility would be to simply delete it this, as "List of castles in Wales" is already linked in See Also, and partially covers the same ground. This is only a suggestion, however, and doesn't fall under the Good Article criteria.
  • It's disorienting to have the final image of Beaumaris fall under "Other Edwardian castles in Wales"--can it be moved up to the Beaumaris section, or is that overdoing it there with images?

Again, excellent work on this. Since this appears close to perfect so far, I'll begin the checklist now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is excellent.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Yes.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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. Sourcing appears excellent.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images are well selected and well captioned.
7. Overall assessment. Really terrific work--one of the best-written articles I've ever reviewed at GAN. Thanks for all your effort on this one.


  • "The architecture of the sites has been extensively debated" -- Does this statement have a source? (I know the article gives several historians as sources, but that's not quite the same as "extensively debated"). It appears to me that the lead probably doesn't need this sentence in any case, and you might consider just removing it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Reconstruction of a 13th-century castle in north Wales[edit]

A reconstruction of Holt Castle in 1495

Would this reconstruction of Holt Castle be useful? Though Holt isn't included in the World Heritage Site, it was built by Edward I so may make a useful comparison. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it fits in well in this article, but I've been slowly working on an Edwardian castle article, and it might fit rather nicely there... Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC) NB: a cracking video, btw! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough :-) Richard Nevell (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Hchc2009/Sandbox4 - needs a bit of work though... Hchc2009 (talk)

Broken references[edit]


I'm translating this article into French and I've run into several broken references, with links to items which do not appear in the bibliography: Taylor 2009 (number 34 at the time of writing) and Taylor 2003 (number 37 at the time of writing). If I had to guess, I'd say that both should be corrected to Taylor 2004, since they're both referencing information concerning Beaumaris, but it would be better if someone with access to these books could check. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

There's also Kenyon 2010 (number 72) and Taylor 1997 (number 74)—a typo for Taylor 1987, I guess? I may add more as I'm working on my translation. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Aelfgar. Yes, I can fix - will try to do so tomorrow night when I've got access to the relevant books (am travelling at the moment and editing by phone). Hchc2009 (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully all fixed now! Cheers, Hchc2009 (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)