Talk:Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review[edit]

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

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)