Talk:Walmer Castle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 13:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And if the north and east bastions are filled in on the ground floor, why does the plan show their embrasures?

That implies that artillery was designed to go inside the bastions and that they were then filled in and the guns moved to the roof. Is that correct? Leaving embrasures if you want to solidly support the guns on the roof seems rather counter=productive.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a description of the process of filling in the bastions, but modern diagrams show the embrasures as being open, and it corresponds with modern photographs where you can also see that they've been left open. I'm guessing that since the embrasures were always open, their arches were already carrying the weight of the walls above them quite happily, and that there wasn't much to be gained by filling them up with earth (and that using stone would have been expensive). It's a feature I've seen at other forts of this period where the bastions were subsequently filled up to produce solid firing platforms. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's less work to seal up the narrower interior end of the embrasure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"homely" - as in "simple but cosy and comfortable, as in one's own home"...? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two people divided by a single language, again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lygon also had sexual relations with men, which was illegal in England during this period.[68] Rumours spread about the parties that he had held at Walmer Castle after the war, where, according to the historian Richard Davenport-Hines, he had "behaved indiscreetly with young men".[69] The King was informed about his lifestyle and Lygon was threatened with arrest, consequently fleeing the country in 1931 and resigning the appointment of Lord Warden the following year This is awkward. There's no set up so the "also" in the first sentence makes no sense.

You've got an awful lot of stuff here about the various Lords Warden, but much isn't really relevant to the history of the castle and should be removed.

Could you give an example Sturmvogel? I've tried to include the sorts of examples used in typical histories of the castle, so it would be useful to know what sorts of things were causing concern. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically anything about any warden who didn't have anything to do with the castle and its grounds, which is most of the later ones. I don't know, maybe I'm being a bit too strict, but much of the material about the Lords Warden belongs in the article on the Lord Wardenship, IMO. Look at the stuff on Dalhousie, Palmerston, and Menzies. Pam is sort of OK as there's the bit about the contents, but... I just had a feeling that you felt obligated to list every Warden who lived there and I really don't see a need for any of that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'd certainly recognise the risk in general, I'm not sure I agree with you in this particular case. In part, this is because I think it is important to discuss fortifications as social and cultural institutions, and their use as state institutions is part of this. It is also because the histories of the castle, including modern texts, put a great deal of emphasis on its use by the Lord Wardens, and I think that the weighting in the article as it stands is approximately in balance with that found in the sources. I think the style is summarising events moderately well - Menzies' period as the lord of the castle, for example, is captured in 25 words, while poor Dalhousie - who admittedly doesn't seem to have done very much - only gets 9 words! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its curved walls were 15-foot-thick (4.6 m) No need for adjectival format and are the walls less thick now?

I'm a little confused about the original layout of the artillery. Was it all in the bastions or was some of it in the keep proper? And how much was inside the bastions as opposed to the gun platforms on their roofs?

I've tweaked the wording slightly. To be honest, I don't think historians know! You would have put the heavier guns on top, as they were believed to fire further (not necessarily the case, but anyway...), and typically spread the weapons across the keep and the bastions, but we don't have accounts of how commanders actually decided to position the guns in practice. Sadly the drawings from the period tend to have a "artist's impression" flavour to them! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So how many storeys in the keep? Ground floor plus two? Not many for an 82-foot-tall keep.

I can't find the 82-foot-tall keep mention; there's a bit that says it is "83 feet (25 m) across" though. Have I missed something...? Hchc2009 (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that the Duke of Dorset's additions are prominent on the aerial photo; if so, mention them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the wording to draw attention to the later changes. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]