Talk:Kirby Muxloe Castle
|Kirby Muxloe Castle has been listed as one of the Warfare 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.
Review: April 24, 2017. ( ).
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kirby Muxloe Castle article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Kirby Muxloe Castle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Interesting article. There are a few grammatical problems here and there, but they should be relatively easy fixes.
- In the lead section, Edward IV is introduced without any context. Maybe just add "king" before his name, so readers who may not be already familiar with him do not have to click through to another page.
- In the second paragraph of the lead, Historic England is also mentioned without explanation. A word or two will do, simply to let the reader know this is an official organization of the British government.
- The second sentence of the 1st paragraph under the 15th-17th centuries tab in the History section could be worded better. I recommend replacing "lands" with "territory" to avoid word repetition with "Midlands". As well, "the course of the Wars of the Roses" can simply be replaced by "the Wars of the Roses".
- As well, in the next paragraph, the date 1581 is given. I believe this should be 1481?
- The third paragraph under the Design section has multiple issues. The third sentence appears to be a sentence fragment, and should be either removed, incorporated into an existing sentence, or rewritten. The following sentence includes the phrase "might had been", which should be corrected to "might have been". The fifth sentence can be split into two, as the phrases on either side of the semicolon appear unrelated. As well, in the same sentence, the phrase "has since been lost" should be replaced with something more specific, such as "the ruins have not been found". Is there any evidence to suggest the second floor was ever completed?
- Changes made. I've gone for "estates" as opposed to "territory" (typically kings had "territory"...) I don't think there's any clarity about whether the second floor was ever completed (in total or in part); reading between the lines, I don't think most historians think it was, but that depends on your reading of the account book, and how much stone was robbed in the intervening centuries...
- Many thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.