Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Warwick Castle

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:36, 31 July 2008 [1].

Warwick Castle edit

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it fulfils the FA criteria. It's an important article about one of England's best known castles, however there are no articles about castles of FA quality so this is a bit experimental. I believe it's comprehensive and has benefited greatly from a peer review and a copy edit. All comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome. Thanks in advance. Nev1 (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Generally galleries of pictures are frowned on, but I don't religiously follow the MOS, so I may be incorrect on this.
  • MOS:IMAGES does not explicitly say "do not use galleries" but since there is a link to commons, I have removed the gallery. Nev1 (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise links checked out with the link checker, sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nev1 has responded to all my major concerns. Comments Opposing for now I need to be convinced that the references support the statements in the article. GrahamColmTalk 18:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first sentence is too long. There is too much information here; please try to make at least two sentences.
  • It is traditionally associated with the earldom of Warwick, one of the oldest in England, although it was not in their possession between the early 17th and mid-18th centuries. — There's a singular/plural problem with earldom, which makes the sentence sound wrong. Try using something like the Earls' possession.
  • Please be more specific about the 1970s; it wasn't that long ago.
  • The castle was taken by Henry of Anjou, later Henry II, in 1153 when the Earl of Warwick's wife was tricked into handing over the castle, and was again lost temporarily in 1264, following a surprise attack during the Second Barons' War. — If you were new to the article, and had strategic distance, you would instantly see how funny this is. It is the ownership of the castle and not the castle itself.
  • When was it used as a prison?
  • It don't think the castle "demonstrated" power; it was a symbol of power perhaps?
  • Please do not use "various", it adds no information.
  • When Fulke Greville gained ownership of the castle in 1604 it was ruinous; £20,000 was spent on its restoration. — Do you mean it was ruined, or a ruin even? And, what's twenty grand in today's money, both sterling and dollars?
  • In the 17th century the grounds were landscaped and turned into a garden. — I think in this context landscaped and turned into a garden mean the same thing.
  • The castle was the subject of several paintings and drawings by the Italian master Antonio Canaletto — As the paintings still exist, please use the present tense.
  • I think the "haunting" sections lower the quality of the article. Does it really need them?

I will have more to say about this FAC later. GrahamColmTalk 17:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have made these changes addressing your concerns. I think the outstanding issue is concerning the 'haunting' section. Hauntings have become part of the folklore surrounding Warwick Castle with attractions pandering to the public's curiosity on the subject, and some readers will be coming to this article in search of this information. I have attempted to avoid adding bias either way to this section, I have also taken steps to prevent the addition of unsourced material to the section by adding an unsourced comment. If consensus emerges that the section is inappropriate, I think the information should be integrated elsewhere into the article. Nev1 (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • Warwick Castle is situated on a sandstone bluff in a bend of the River Avon, making it a naturally defensible site. — The source says that the river and cliff form natural defences, which is better.
  • The castle's position made it strategically important in safeguarding the Midlands against rebellion. The military significance of the castle diminished as the Normans secured their control of England. — I can't find this in the source given, and shouldn't this be in the history section?
  • Kenilworth Castle – a castle of comparative size, cost, and importance — has castle twice. GrahamColmTalk 17:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, not sure where I read the bit about diminishing military significance so I've removed it. If I find it again, I'll re-add it. There's been a bit of copy editing too. Nev1 (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • legend has it that the construction of the fortifications was instigated by Ethelfleda, daughter of Alfred the Great. — Why do you call this a legend? It seems to be true.
  • The source from Times Online says it's a legend. This is available to read if you have an account, however since the average reader won't have one I did not include the link. Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1088, Henry de Beaumont was made the first Earl of Warwick.[4] A Church of All Saints was founded by the first Earl of Warwick within the castle walls by 1119; the Bishop of Worcester, believing that a castle was an... — There are two occurrences of Earl of Warwick close together.
  • Changed to "In 1088, Henry de Beaumont was made the first Earl of Warwick.[4] He founded the Church of All Saints within the castle walls by 1119"
  • In 1153, the wife of Roger de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Warwick, was tricked into believing that her husband was dead, and surrendered control of the castle to the invading army of Henry of Anjou, later King Henry — Reference 4 has this:
On the arrival in England of Henry of Anjou in 1153, the garrison was tricked into handing over the castle to Henry's men, possibly at the instigation of the Countess Gundred in the absence of the earl, who supported Stephen and is said to have died of chagrin on hearing the news.
  • The printed source, Castles in Context by Liddiard, contains the information on her being tricked into believing her husband is dead, Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have lost the castle again.
  • That phrase only occurs once in the article, do you mean something else? Nev1 (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lost control of the castle? Lost ownership of the castle? GrahamColmTalk 21:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I've changed it to "handed over control of the castle". For anyone reading out of context, that may seem like a complete change of tone, but the original sentence read "According to the Gesta Stephani, a 12th-century historical text, Roger de Beaumont died on hearing the news that his wife had lost the castle". Nev1 (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the barons' rebellion of 1173–74 Warwick Castle was under the control of King Henry II and was used to store provisions. — I can't find this in the source.
  • I can. From reference 4: "In 1173 the sheriff provided a large store of wheat to provision the castle motte, placed a guard on it probably from local levies raised against the revolt of the king's sons in that year". Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The castle and the lands associated with the earldom passed through six generations of the Beaumont family until 1242, when King Henry III gained ownership of Warwick Castle. — Again, can you point out where this is in the source?
  • From the online source: "Thomas the 6th earl, who died in June 1242 without male heirs. He was succeeded by his sister Margery, whose husband, John Marshal, was given seisin of her lands and of the castle but died in October of the same year. (fn. 7) The widow agreed not to remarry before the following Ascension Eve on pain of forfeiture, (fn. 8) but the castle was nevertheless ordered to be taken into the king's hand as a pledge for a suitable remarriage". Sorry that bit's rather long. I took the 6th earl of Warwick to imply there had been 6 generations, although on reflection this may have been incorrect and I have altered it slightly. Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly this: During the Second Barons' War of 1264–67, William Maudit, 8th Earl of Warwick, was an inactive supporter of King Henry III.
  • From the online source: "At an early stage of the Barons' Wars, in which the earl [William Maudit] was an inactive supporter of the king, Warwick Castle attracted the attention of John Giffard of Brimpsfield who in 1264 was holding Kenilworth Castle for Simon de Montfort." Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this De Montfort ordered the walls along the northeastern side of the castle to be slighted so that it would be useless to the king.
  • From the online source: "He [John Giffard] took Warwick Castle in a surprise attack and, in the words of John Rous, 'for that it should be no strength to the king, he beat with his fellowship down the wall from tower to tower, which unto Earl Thomas's days after was hedged'". I have removed mention of de Montfort ordering it. Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • was captured by Guy de Beauchamp, 10th Earl of Warwick, and imprisoned in Warwick Castle until his execution on 9 June 1312. — The source does not give the date.
  • A new source has been added with the date. Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This work was performed under Thomas de Beauchamp — Where in the source does it say this?
  • "To Thomas Beauchamp the elder (d. 1369) must be ascribed the building of Caesar's Tower, the gatehouse and barbican, and part at least of the high curtain wall on the north-east front" in the online source and further backed up by the Liddiard book. Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GrahamColmTalk 18:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have read about half of the article and I will add further comments later. GrahamColmTalk 18:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments These refer to the section 'A country house and following sections:

  • The article suffers from a lack of commas, particularly this section.
  • In this sentence, Fulke Greville spent over £20,000 (£3,000,000 or $6,000,000 in 2007)[25] renovating the castle to make it "a place not only of great strength but extraordinary delight, with most pleasant gardens, walks and thickets, such as this part of England can hardly parallel" according to William Dugdale, a 17th century antiquary. — The according to might be better a the beginning of the sentence.
  • Please check the article for endash and emdash usage, I think I saw a couple of misuses.
  • There is an odd double bracket, in 2007)34).
  • This sentence, Restoration and reparations carried out by Salvin during 1872–75 cost £9,651, which were subsidised by donations from the public, needs some attention; it's not clear what the "which" refers to.
  • A large visitor attraction business — does not sound idiomatic.
  • 15 tons of ice — please check what, if anything, WP:MOS has to say on starting a sentence with a number.
  • The first record of formal gardens belonging to Warwick Castle is in 1534. — ? is in 1534, sounds odd.

GrahamColmTalk 16:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These edits have been made. Could you be more explicit in your concerns about dashes? All endashes between words are spaced, and not when linking numbers (ie: in dates) and emdashes are generally avoided. MOS does not mention numbers at the start of sentences, but I have changed it anyway. Commas? {{sofixit}}. Nev1 (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for an interesting FAC and the invitation to edit :) But I think I've spent enough time on the article for now. Best of luck with the rest of the candidature. Graham. GrahamColmTalk 18:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI - numbers at the start of sentences are written out per this. Great article ;) EyeSerenetalk 09:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All images are tagged and used appropriately; the nonfree image has an appropriate fair use rationale and meets WP:NFCC. —Giggy 11:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support—My Concerns have been addressed, so I changed my preference to support. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved.—RJH (talk) 21
17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment—I think this article needs a thorough copy-edit. Some notes:

  • "It is traditionally associated with the earldom of Warwick, one of the oldest in England, although it was not in its possession between the early 17th and mid-18th centuries." I find this sentence to be rife with ambiguities. One of the oldest castles or one of the oldest earldoms? Does the second it refer to the castle or the earldom? Please clarify the text.
  • "It was again lost temporarily in 1264..." It was regained prior to 1264? Unclear.
  • "...lands associated with the earldom passed through the Beaumont family..." Does this mean it was returned to the Beaumont family, or that they did not have control?
  • "...has eroded the rock the castle stands on into a cliff." Seems awkwardly worded.
  • "During the 12th century, King Henry I was suspicious of Roger de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Warwick. To counter the earl's influence, Henry bestowed Geoffrey de Clinton with a position of power rivalling that of the earl." It is unclear what this has to do with the surrounding text, or the location of this castle. Please clarify in the article.
  • "...handed over castle." 'The' castle?
  • "...are both machicolated and were residential and are considered..." Too much switching of tense and too many 'and's.

&c. &c. I stopped checking about a third of the way down.—RJH (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have made these changes per your remarks. Nev1 (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for addressing my concerns. I'll try to take a look through the remainder of the article.—RJH (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following text, while interesting, makes for a jarring break in continuity: "The conspirators involved in the... ...to help in their escape." The paragraph begins with the conversion into a country house, then the theft of horses for the Gunpowder Plot, and finally back to a discussion of the conversion. Please could you fix it?—RJH (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean, I'd already tried (unsuccessfully) to integrate that brief mention. I'd like to put it into it's own paragraph, but it's only a couple of sentences and I can't find any more on the event. How about if I changed it to this (added text in bold):

In 1604, the ruinous castle was given to Sir Fulke Greville by King James I and was converted into a country house. Whilst the castle was undergoing repairs, it was peripherally involved in the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. The conspirators involved awaited news of their plot in Dunchurch in Warwickshire. When they discovered the plot had failed they stole cavalry horses from the stables at Warwick Castle to help in their escape.

  • It's still not great, but I don't want to remove it altogether. Nev1 (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the stuff in for now. Nev1 (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]
  • Comments Weak oppose. The article is pretty good, but I think that there is a bit of detail that should be added to help readers unfamiliar with the history and the workings of castles. The images are absolutely beautiful.
  • The last paragraph of the lead may need a bit of organization work. The sentence about the paintings seems out of place in its current location - I'd move it to become the last sentence of the lead.
  • I've tweaked the paragraph, but it may need further edits. Nev1 (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the location section, I am a bit confused as to why the information about Geofrey de Clinton and Kenilworth are included. This seems to be better situated in the history section somewhere.
  • It was originally intended to explain why Kenilworth, the nearest castle to Warwick, deserved a mention but has since expanded. It could be trimmed? Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions that the wife of the 2nd Earl of Warwick surrendered the castle, but later mentions another Earl of Warwick who supported Henry II. There may need to be a brief explanation of how they got the castle back.
  • Explanation of the return of the castle now given [2] Nev1 (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there should be some rewording and a bit more explanation of the events of 1242. Perhaps explain that the Xth Earl died, and while his eldest daughter looked for a husband the King oversaw the castle... Readers who are not familiar with this time period may be confused.
  • Perhaps a sentence about why Piers Gaveston was captured, imprisoned, and executed? It sort of sounds in the article like Beauchamp took matters into his own hands.
  • He did. I've added more information. [3] Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize that a lot of the terms are wikilinked, but I think that some of them should be explained a bit in the article, too. Otherwise there just seems to be too much jargon. For example, machicolated, barbican
  • I've added explanations of some terms that may not be clear to the reader [4] are there any others that might need explaining? Nev1 (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reconstruction of the gatehouse and the east façade was also funded by the spoils of the Battle of Poitiers in 1356." - this implies that we've been told an additional funding source for the reconstruction, but we haven't
  • It was meant that the gatehouse and facade as well as Caesar's Tower, rather than as well as an alternative source. I have reworded it. [5] Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph that starts with Anne de Beauchamp dieing does not flow very well. There is a lot of repetitive wording.
  • Why was Edward Plantagenet executed? We find out that he was two and then that he died.
  • I'm not entirely sure what this means "the last Earl of Warwick on its first creation"
  • Now reads "Edward was the last Earl of Warwick on the title's first creation". Nev1 (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, short quotations (less than 4 lines) should not be offset as block quotes, but should be in the paragraph.
  • I've removed the quote template from one quotation, but the remaining three I have left as they are for now. The problem with the MOS conditions (ie: 4 lines) is that it's subjective. The quotes are all about 3 lines on my screen but other readers with lower resolution monitors may see more. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ambrose Dudley, 3rd Earl of Warwick, left the castle during the Queen's visits" - does this mean he joined her at the timber building or that he was rude and totaly left the area?
  • Is it necessary to use Image:Plan of Warwick Castle.JPG as a fair use? I wonder if it would be possible to recreate the image
  • Is there any more information available about the rooms inside the castle? The history is told in good detail, but I feel like the structure itself is more glossed over.
  • All the sources I have available (including access to Jstor) concentrate on the defences of the castle rather than the residential buildings. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - The first thing I do when looking at a FA candidate is look over the references. But I saw no problems here, great job with the article. Well-referenced, kind of short for an FA but sweet and to the point. Well done. --Meldshal [T] {C} 20:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Warwick_Castle&oldid=1155514054"