This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Scotland and
Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article is written in
Scottish English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
A fact from Earlstoun Castle appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 August 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that defence was not a significant factor in the design or placement of Earlstoun Castle, which was unusual for a 16th-century
tower house?
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that despite its name, the design and situation of Earlstoun Castle(pictured) make little concession to its defence? Source: Gifford source: "Unmartial tower", "Unusually for a house of this age and type... ...no gunloop". Maxwell Irving source: "Clearly defence was not a major consideration... ...no gun-loops, and the site... ...has no natural protection... ...no evidence that the castle ever had a parapet or corner turrets."
I am a sucker for architecture and especially historic buildings. The article is both new enough and long enough. The QPQ is done. The image is free and freedom of panorama exists in the UK for buildings. The building is also 400+ years old. Regarding the image - I am unsure how suitable it is for the main page based on the size of the subject in the image. I commend Girth Summit for going on location to get the images. The article is cited and referenced properly (AGF on several books without links): with the exception of issues related to the lead (see below). Then article does not alert the copyvio detector and I spot checked references where links were available. I also want to call for new hooks since ALT0 feels clumsy to me.
Several facts are introduced in the lead, but they are not restated and cited in the body. (The other lead facts are all properly cited in the body)
Thanks for the review,
Bruxton. To address your concerns:
'Uninhabited' - the sources are pretty clear that it is run down, the floors are giving way, etc. On the other hand, none of them say that it is ruinous, entirely derelict, etc. It is entirely clear that it is both uninhabited, and uninhabitable, from the sources - but it is also clear that it has doors, a roof, and is not a ruined building overrun by nettles. If you would recommend a rewording, I would be pleased to consider it.
1600 - none of the sources are prepared to nail their flags to the mast on construction date. They all agree that it must have been pre-1601, and not earlier than late 16C - hence, 'around 1600'. I thought I'd been clear about that in the article, but would be willing to revisit if you think necessary.
Location - do you mean location as in the coordinates (which ultimately come from the listing documents), or location as in the exposed situation (which is cited to a source). If the former, I'd be happy to add a reference, but I'll note that I have written quite a few Good and Featured articles about listed buildings, and nobody has ever called upon me to specifically cite their coordinates.
Regarding the call for new hooks - I'd be happy to review, but I'd be grateful for some specific guidance about what you think if clumsy.
@
Girth Summit: Thanks for the quick response. Great article! The fixes I think are minor - the fact that it is not inhabited is not cited anywhere, and the idea that it was "Built around 1600" is also not cited anywhere. No citations are needed in the lead per
MOS:LEADCITE - however you have introduced these as "facts" in the lead and my opinion is that they need to be cited in the body. You have done that for all of the other facts in the lead. Regarding the location (St John's Town of Dalry in Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland) - coordinates are not required, but location is not not cited in anywhere in the article. For the hooks I cannot propose them or correct them or I will not be able to approve them. The present hook I just do not find interesting. Also a note about headings: I prefer the History section before the Description section, but I think that is just preference. Thanks!
Bruxton (
talk)
22:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Bruxton, I think that the 'uninhabited' description in the lead is a reasonable one-word summary for a building which has had no recorded inhabitants since the 18th C, and the upper floors of which have collapsed. If you insist, I could change it to 'derelict'?
Built around 1600 - well, the sourced assertions indicate that it was built before 1601, and most likely in the later part of the C16. I can't give a specific date - 'around 1600' seems reasonable to me, but I'd be happy to change it to 'in the late sixteenth century-if you prefer.
Regarding the location, I don't really know what to say. Every one of the sources confirm the location, in one way or another. The castle is in a place called Earlston, next to Earlstoun Loch and Earlstoun Power Station - this is like being asked for a reference to confirm that Edinburgh Castle is a castle in Edinburgh. Nevertheless, I will try to find an appropriate location to add another citation to support this, but I will wait to hear your thoughts on the other matters before doing that.
Hook - actually, reviewers often suggest alternative hooks. I have done so myself several times, and reviewers have often done so for me. In your initial comments, you said my hook was 'clumsy'. In your subsequent comment, you said that it didn't interest you. I'd be grateful if you would explain what about it is clumsy, or dull, so that I can try to improve it. Thanks for the review.
GirthSummit (blether)23:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Bruxton - please look again. I have changed 'around 1600' to 'late sixteenth century', I have added a referenced line about its location, and I have changed 'uninhabited' to 'derelict'. I would be grateful for some more detailed comments about what you perceive to be the problem with the hook. I appreciate that 'what is interesting' is subjective, but I think the fact that a castle was built with little regard to its own defense is inherently interesting - several of the sources comment upon how unusual it is in this regard. I don't need you to suggest an alternative hook, but I'd be grateful if you'd be willing expand on what your issue is so that I can attempt to address it. Thanks
GirthSummit (blether)09:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Girth Summit: I see the article edits, thank you. Regarding the hook ALT0, it is confusing me with the opening line "despite its name" - I do not see what that has to do with defense. And the wording of the next part of the hook, "Design and situation". The word situation seems out of place in my own vernacular. Similar to the language in the article: "....and its situation in open ground offers no natural protection." I might instead say placement, location, position or some such word instead of situation. So how about a simplified hook?
* ALT1... that the 16th century Earlstoun Castle(pictured) did not have many defences?
Bruxton Ah, OK I see. It's the word 'castle' I was focussing on - it's unusual to have a castle that is not designed with defence in mind. Regarding the word 'situation', when I type the word into Google, it offers me two definitions (which themselves come from OUP). The second one, "the location and surroundings of a place", is exactly what I mean - I don't think that any of the synonyms you've proposed quite capture that sense of where it is and also what surrounds it. I'll leave it in the article, but happy to keep it out of the hook since we want that to be easily accessible. How about this:
*ALT2 ...that, unusually for a sixteenth century
tower house, defence was not a significant factor in the design or placement of Earlstoun Castle(pictured).
@
Girth Summit: The image is better, but I honestly do not know what shape or format it should be. I imagine someone like
SL93 or
Amakuru might know more and you can crop if they say it needs cropping. ALT2 the word unusually seems out of place. I am passing the image - and I am proposing another hook based on your last idea.
I can live what that,
Bruxton - but it will need to have 'that' adding to the beginning to comply with the format rules. I'm also adding a comma, which I think helps the flow:
ALT4 ...that defence was not a significant factor in the design or placement of Earlstoun Castle(pictured), which was unusual for a sixteenth century
tower house?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Scotland and
Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article is written in
Scottish English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
A fact from Earlstoun Castle appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 August 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that defence was not a significant factor in the design or placement of Earlstoun Castle, which was unusual for a 16th-century
tower house?
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that despite its name, the design and situation of Earlstoun Castle(pictured) make little concession to its defence? Source: Gifford source: "Unmartial tower", "Unusually for a house of this age and type... ...no gunloop". Maxwell Irving source: "Clearly defence was not a major consideration... ...no gun-loops, and the site... ...has no natural protection... ...no evidence that the castle ever had a parapet or corner turrets."
I am a sucker for architecture and especially historic buildings. The article is both new enough and long enough. The QPQ is done. The image is free and freedom of panorama exists in the UK for buildings. The building is also 400+ years old. Regarding the image - I am unsure how suitable it is for the main page based on the size of the subject in the image. I commend Girth Summit for going on location to get the images. The article is cited and referenced properly (AGF on several books without links): with the exception of issues related to the lead (see below). Then article does not alert the copyvio detector and I spot checked references where links were available. I also want to call for new hooks since ALT0 feels clumsy to me.
Several facts are introduced in the lead, but they are not restated and cited in the body. (The other lead facts are all properly cited in the body)
Thanks for the review,
Bruxton. To address your concerns:
'Uninhabited' - the sources are pretty clear that it is run down, the floors are giving way, etc. On the other hand, none of them say that it is ruinous, entirely derelict, etc. It is entirely clear that it is both uninhabited, and uninhabitable, from the sources - but it is also clear that it has doors, a roof, and is not a ruined building overrun by nettles. If you would recommend a rewording, I would be pleased to consider it.
1600 - none of the sources are prepared to nail their flags to the mast on construction date. They all agree that it must have been pre-1601, and not earlier than late 16C - hence, 'around 1600'. I thought I'd been clear about that in the article, but would be willing to revisit if you think necessary.
Location - do you mean location as in the coordinates (which ultimately come from the listing documents), or location as in the exposed situation (which is cited to a source). If the former, I'd be happy to add a reference, but I'll note that I have written quite a few Good and Featured articles about listed buildings, and nobody has ever called upon me to specifically cite their coordinates.
Regarding the call for new hooks - I'd be happy to review, but I'd be grateful for some specific guidance about what you think if clumsy.
@
Girth Summit: Thanks for the quick response. Great article! The fixes I think are minor - the fact that it is not inhabited is not cited anywhere, and the idea that it was "Built around 1600" is also not cited anywhere. No citations are needed in the lead per
MOS:LEADCITE - however you have introduced these as "facts" in the lead and my opinion is that they need to be cited in the body. You have done that for all of the other facts in the lead. Regarding the location (St John's Town of Dalry in Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland) - coordinates are not required, but location is not not cited in anywhere in the article. For the hooks I cannot propose them or correct them or I will not be able to approve them. The present hook I just do not find interesting. Also a note about headings: I prefer the History section before the Description section, but I think that is just preference. Thanks!
Bruxton (
talk)
22:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Bruxton, I think that the 'uninhabited' description in the lead is a reasonable one-word summary for a building which has had no recorded inhabitants since the 18th C, and the upper floors of which have collapsed. If you insist, I could change it to 'derelict'?
Built around 1600 - well, the sourced assertions indicate that it was built before 1601, and most likely in the later part of the C16. I can't give a specific date - 'around 1600' seems reasonable to me, but I'd be happy to change it to 'in the late sixteenth century-if you prefer.
Regarding the location, I don't really know what to say. Every one of the sources confirm the location, in one way or another. The castle is in a place called Earlston, next to Earlstoun Loch and Earlstoun Power Station - this is like being asked for a reference to confirm that Edinburgh Castle is a castle in Edinburgh. Nevertheless, I will try to find an appropriate location to add another citation to support this, but I will wait to hear your thoughts on the other matters before doing that.
Hook - actually, reviewers often suggest alternative hooks. I have done so myself several times, and reviewers have often done so for me. In your initial comments, you said my hook was 'clumsy'. In your subsequent comment, you said that it didn't interest you. I'd be grateful if you would explain what about it is clumsy, or dull, so that I can try to improve it. Thanks for the review.
GirthSummit (blether)23:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Bruxton - please look again. I have changed 'around 1600' to 'late sixteenth century', I have added a referenced line about its location, and I have changed 'uninhabited' to 'derelict'. I would be grateful for some more detailed comments about what you perceive to be the problem with the hook. I appreciate that 'what is interesting' is subjective, but I think the fact that a castle was built with little regard to its own defense is inherently interesting - several of the sources comment upon how unusual it is in this regard. I don't need you to suggest an alternative hook, but I'd be grateful if you'd be willing expand on what your issue is so that I can attempt to address it. Thanks
GirthSummit (blether)09:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Girth Summit: I see the article edits, thank you. Regarding the hook ALT0, it is confusing me with the opening line "despite its name" - I do not see what that has to do with defense. And the wording of the next part of the hook, "Design and situation". The word situation seems out of place in my own vernacular. Similar to the language in the article: "....and its situation in open ground offers no natural protection." I might instead say placement, location, position or some such word instead of situation. So how about a simplified hook?
* ALT1... that the 16th century Earlstoun Castle(pictured) did not have many defences?
Bruxton Ah, OK I see. It's the word 'castle' I was focussing on - it's unusual to have a castle that is not designed with defence in mind. Regarding the word 'situation', when I type the word into Google, it offers me two definitions (which themselves come from OUP). The second one, "the location and surroundings of a place", is exactly what I mean - I don't think that any of the synonyms you've proposed quite capture that sense of where it is and also what surrounds it. I'll leave it in the article, but happy to keep it out of the hook since we want that to be easily accessible. How about this:
*ALT2 ...that, unusually for a sixteenth century
tower house, defence was not a significant factor in the design or placement of Earlstoun Castle(pictured).
@
Girth Summit: The image is better, but I honestly do not know what shape or format it should be. I imagine someone like
SL93 or
Amakuru might know more and you can crop if they say it needs cropping. ALT2 the word unusually seems out of place. I am passing the image - and I am proposing another hook based on your last idea.
I can live what that,
Bruxton - but it will need to have 'that' adding to the beginning to comply with the format rules. I'm also adding a comma, which I think helps the flow:
ALT4 ...that defence was not a significant factor in the design or placement of Earlstoun Castle(pictured), which was unusual for a sixteenth century
tower house?