This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
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)
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)
"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
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)
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)