![]() | Gleaston 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 10, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gleaston Castle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is a 3D model of Gleaston Castle available on Sketchfab. Could this be added to an 'external links' section? For disclosure, I'm on the board of the Castle Studies Trust which sponsored the creation of the model. Richard Nevell ( talk) 19:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I've prepared a new draft of the article at User:Richard Nevell/sandbox. I've tried to make sure that everything is referenced. It does draw on the Castle Studies Trust's recent work, so as I'm a trustee for the charity I want to check if people are happy for me to update the article with what I've put in the sandbox. Richard Nevell ( talk) 17:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hchc2009 ( talk · contribs) 14:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
(c) it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
@ Hchc2009: Thank you for taking the time to go through the article and all the useful feedback. I've gone through and made all the changes. Richard Nevell ( talk) 19:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Gleaston 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 10, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gleaston Castle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is a 3D model of Gleaston Castle available on Sketchfab. Could this be added to an 'external links' section? For disclosure, I'm on the board of the Castle Studies Trust which sponsored the creation of the model. Richard Nevell ( talk) 19:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I've prepared a new draft of the article at User:Richard Nevell/sandbox. I've tried to make sure that everything is referenced. It does draw on the Castle Studies Trust's recent work, so as I'm a trustee for the charity I want to check if people are happy for me to update the article with what I've put in the sandbox. Richard Nevell ( talk) 17:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hchc2009 ( talk · contribs) 14:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
(c) it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
@ Hchc2009: Thank you for taking the time to go through the article and all the useful feedback. I've gone through and made all the changes. Richard Nevell ( talk) 19:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)