Talk:Tibbers Castle

(Redirected from Talk:Tibber's Castle)
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Richard Nevell in topic New draft

New draft

edit

Hello, I've prepared an re-draft of this article at User:Richard Nevell/sandbox. Since it mentions work of the Castle Studies Trust and I'm on the charity's board I would appreciate it if someone could have a look and check that the balance is ok. Then if everyone's happy I'd like to copy the contents over to this article. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Horis: @Rosser1954: @QuintusPetillius: @Rod Oliphant: @What Are The Civilian Applications?: @Hchc2009: Hi folks, I'm pinging you because you're either listed as a participant at the Scottish Castles WikiProject, are actively editing in the area, or actively edit articles about castles. Would you be happy with me transferring over the draft of the article as I've outlined above? Richard Nevell (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

For reference: opinions on the redraft here and here. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tibbers Castle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 06:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well constructed, will get back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Section 1

edit
  • Para 1; sentence 2; Use past tense of the word "record" i.e "recorded". Comma(,) after Sir Richard Siward must be removed. Because it completely disrupts the sentence meaning.
  • Para 1; last sentence; Add a comma(,) after "In 1302".
  • Para 2; In the sentence "...rs to George Crichton, Lord High Admiral of Scotland and later 1st ....". Add "to the" after "later".
  • Para 2: Capitalize "i" at the start of second sentence.

Section 2

edit

No issues in this section.

Lead

edit

In last sentence change the tense to "took place" instead of "have taken", because the years of happening were mentioned.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

All good suggestions, done so far. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
I've done a couple of edits. Good to go.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for reviewing the article! Richard Nevell (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply