Launceston 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: January 4, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Launceston 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Restored the text as below - statement is about something political concerning this site, but is not written in a pov or inflammatory way - mentioning a political fact concerning this site is not against wikipedia rules so long as neutrally written.
In 1999 there was some controversy regarding this site and others under the care of the English Heritage organisation. The Cornish Stannary Parliament wrote to English Heritage asking them to remove all signs bearing their name from Cornish sites by July 1999 as they regard the ancient sites as Cornish heritage, not English. Over eleven months eighteen signs were removed by members of the Cornish Stannary and a letter was sent to English Heritage saying "The signs have been confiscated and held as evidence of English cultural aggression in Cornwall. Such racially motivated signs are deeply offensive and cause distress to many Cornish people". (see external BBC link).
Following an independant review, I have toned down the paragraph, which now reports the facts that relate specifically to Launceston castle Putney Bridge 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be well if this article had a section explaining this name, whether it is identified with the "Castle Terrible" in Malory's Morte d'Arthur, and other matters touching on legend and its purported history, 72.179.63.75 ( talk) 18:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Eric
Prose comments;
... comprised a earthwork and timber castle ...- an earthwork, rather than a earthwork.
earldom of Cornwall- Should earldom be capitalized? same question with
duchy of Cornwall.
then substantially redeveloped by Richard of Cornwall, after 1227,-> then substantially redeveloped by Richard of Cornwall after 1227,
Towards the civil war it was stripped- start, middle, end of the war? any clue?
Much of the castle defences remains- either castle defence remains, or, castle defences remain.
It was located at a strategic location- reptitive; It was built at a strategic location, or, its location was strategic.
Robert's son, William, rebelled against William Rufus in 1106 and the castle was confiscated by the King.- who's the king? Henry I? why not say confiscated by King Henry I?
Two years later, the Crown granted the post of constable in perpetuity to Hugh and for two generations after him, in exchange for which Hugh agreed to invest £120 in repairing the facility- this sentence is a bit messy; Two years later, the Crown granted the post of constable in perpetuity to Hugh and for two generations after him, in exchange, Hugh agreed to invest £120 in repairing the facility.
... from the Duke of Cornwall, the then Prince George- I think that it would sound less wonky like; from the Duke of Cornwall, and Prince of Wales, George IV. The "the then" sounds staggered in my head. Though, only in this instance, so... ignore if you will.
By now the castle was in poor repair- poor condition or disrepair. I don't think it's in any state of "repair" at that moment.
The Ministry of Works took over the guardianship of the castle in 1951 and put pressure on the Air Ministry to leave the site, which occurred in 1956; the bailey was then grassed over again.- This needs revision, it's at least two sentences in one. Possible rewrite; The Ministry of Works took over the guardianship of the castle in 1961 and put pressure on the Air Ministry to leave the site. They left in 1956 and the bailey was then grassed over again.
a small, carmped and unlit chamber at the base of the keep.I am ninety-nine percent confident that carmped is meant to be cramped.
The tower now leans slightly out of the vertical.- if it leans slightly then it must be out of the vertical. Perhaps, the tower now has a slight lean.
Visitors would have been funnelled around the edge of the part and by the town wall- odd question, but what is a part? a parting or is that meant to be park?
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Zawed ( talk · contribs) 08:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I will review this one over the next few days. Comments to follow. Zawed ( talk) 08:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Have started reviewing.
More to follow. Zawed ( talk) 04:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Zawed, Hchc2009 ( talk) 08:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Have gone through the text (apologies for the length of time it has taken to me to get to this), and made the odd change. Just a couple of things:
Lead
17th–18th centuries
Everything else looks great. Cheers. Zawed ( talk) 03:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Oops, missed them! "packed" fixed as proposed. Philip Piper is as per the source; I think Pyper has to be a descendant, with the usual changes of spelling you get in this period, but the sources don't actually say this, and we'd be into OR unfortunately. Hchc2009 ( talk) 08:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Launceston 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: January 4, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Launceston 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Restored the text as below - statement is about something political concerning this site, but is not written in a pov or inflammatory way - mentioning a political fact concerning this site is not against wikipedia rules so long as neutrally written.
In 1999 there was some controversy regarding this site and others under the care of the English Heritage organisation. The Cornish Stannary Parliament wrote to English Heritage asking them to remove all signs bearing their name from Cornish sites by July 1999 as they regard the ancient sites as Cornish heritage, not English. Over eleven months eighteen signs were removed by members of the Cornish Stannary and a letter was sent to English Heritage saying "The signs have been confiscated and held as evidence of English cultural aggression in Cornwall. Such racially motivated signs are deeply offensive and cause distress to many Cornish people". (see external BBC link).
Following an independant review, I have toned down the paragraph, which now reports the facts that relate specifically to Launceston castle Putney Bridge 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be well if this article had a section explaining this name, whether it is identified with the "Castle Terrible" in Malory's Morte d'Arthur, and other matters touching on legend and its purported history, 72.179.63.75 ( talk) 18:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Eric
Prose comments;
... comprised a earthwork and timber castle ...- an earthwork, rather than a earthwork.
earldom of Cornwall- Should earldom be capitalized? same question with
duchy of Cornwall.
then substantially redeveloped by Richard of Cornwall, after 1227,-> then substantially redeveloped by Richard of Cornwall after 1227,
Towards the civil war it was stripped- start, middle, end of the war? any clue?
Much of the castle defences remains- either castle defence remains, or, castle defences remain.
It was located at a strategic location- reptitive; It was built at a strategic location, or, its location was strategic.
Robert's son, William, rebelled against William Rufus in 1106 and the castle was confiscated by the King.- who's the king? Henry I? why not say confiscated by King Henry I?
Two years later, the Crown granted the post of constable in perpetuity to Hugh and for two generations after him, in exchange for which Hugh agreed to invest £120 in repairing the facility- this sentence is a bit messy; Two years later, the Crown granted the post of constable in perpetuity to Hugh and for two generations after him, in exchange, Hugh agreed to invest £120 in repairing the facility.
... from the Duke of Cornwall, the then Prince George- I think that it would sound less wonky like; from the Duke of Cornwall, and Prince of Wales, George IV. The "the then" sounds staggered in my head. Though, only in this instance, so... ignore if you will.
By now the castle was in poor repair- poor condition or disrepair. I don't think it's in any state of "repair" at that moment.
The Ministry of Works took over the guardianship of the castle in 1951 and put pressure on the Air Ministry to leave the site, which occurred in 1956; the bailey was then grassed over again.- This needs revision, it's at least two sentences in one. Possible rewrite; The Ministry of Works took over the guardianship of the castle in 1961 and put pressure on the Air Ministry to leave the site. They left in 1956 and the bailey was then grassed over again.
a small, carmped and unlit chamber at the base of the keep.I am ninety-nine percent confident that carmped is meant to be cramped.
The tower now leans slightly out of the vertical.- if it leans slightly then it must be out of the vertical. Perhaps, the tower now has a slight lean.
Visitors would have been funnelled around the edge of the part and by the town wall- odd question, but what is a part? a parting or is that meant to be park?
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Zawed ( talk · contribs) 08:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I will review this one over the next few days. Comments to follow. Zawed ( talk) 08:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Have started reviewing.
More to follow. Zawed ( talk) 04:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Zawed, Hchc2009 ( talk) 08:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Have gone through the text (apologies for the length of time it has taken to me to get to this), and made the odd change. Just a couple of things:
Lead
17th–18th centuries
Everything else looks great. Cheers. Zawed ( talk) 03:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Oops, missed them! "packed" fixed as proposed. Philip Piper is as per the source; I think Pyper has to be a descendant, with the usual changes of spelling you get in this period, but the sources don't actually say this, and we'd be into OR unfortunately. Hchc2009 ( talk) 08:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)