Talk:Buckton Castle

	Buckton Castle is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 12, 2018.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 9, 2008 Good article nominee Listed March 25, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 29, 2018 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Fortifications / Technology / British / European / Medieval 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 Associated task forces: /  Fortifications task force Military science, technology, and theory task force British military history task force European military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Archaeology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Greater Manchester High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester 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.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Architecture Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Thank you for asking me to comment on this article which may be a candidate for GA. I am no expert but I make the following points towards possible improvement, which I hope are helpful.

• It's a pity there is not more information around but I do not see why short articles should not be considered as GAs. The information you have is clearly presented and very well referenced.
• The lead is rather short. Can it be expanded to give a fuller summary of the whole article?
  • It's been expanded a bit.
    Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• The word "medieval" occurs twice in the first sentence. Can one of these be changed?
  • Removed unnecessary second occurrence.
    Nev1 (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• This may be personal, but I prefer the History section to come before Layout.
  • Similar to having history at the start for settlement articles, done.
    Nev1 (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• I suggest a section on the Present state. What is there to see today? Is there public access?
  • That's not a bad idea, but there are two problems: finding a source for what's there; and the fact that not much can be seen. The remains are buried and it just looks like a few earthworks.
    Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Pastscape at [1] mentions the finding of two gold bead chains. That sounds interesting. Can you find out anything about this; when were they found; where are they now; from what historical period do they come; have there been any other similar finds?
  • I've been using Pastscape a lot recently and I think it's very good - especially if you have no other source - but not infallible: the most glaring thing is that Buckton Castle is definately not rectangular. The sources I'm using haven't mentioned any gold chains, but Pastscape may be referring to the catalyst for treasure hunting (there was a rumour there was buried gold up there).
    Nev1 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• What is a Type B ringwork? I certainly have no idea. The article Ringwork does not explain the types of ringwork. Would it be possible to clarify this? I suggest this might be better done by expanding the Ringwork article than by an explanation within the text of this article.
  • The source I have doesn't explicitly state what a Type B ringwork is (or even Type A) or why it's significant. However, since only a handful of castles like Buckton have been excavated I thought it would be worth while to include. I agree that the ringwork article needs expansion, that's something else I'll have to work on.
    Nev1 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• I suggest you add the date of the excavation to the caption of the image in the infobox; relevant and interesting.
  • Done.
    Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Do you have access to Ormerod? This describes the structure (which he calls Bucton castle) in Vol iii, pp. 536–7 and seems to suggest that it was built to defend the road leading from Stalybridge to Yorkshire. It might be worthwhile looking into this further and adding something about it. There is also the image of a plan of the structure at that time which could possibly be incorporated in the article (it should be out of copyright by now).
  • I should have access to Ormerod, I'll have to check, I've got a copy of his plan anyway. I'll try to upload it.
    Nev1 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Best of luck. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the

Issues preventing promotion

(These issues must be satisfactorily addressed, in the article itself or here, before GA promotion can go ahead)

• The lead is made up of short, unconnected sentences. Please break these up to form longer compund sentances which flow better.
  • I've had a go at the lead and hopefully it should have a better, more logical flow.
    Nev1 (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• "Quarrying in the nearby Buckton Vale Quarry threatens". Should this be threatened?
  • Quarrying is still going on but SAM status should protect it so the tense has been changed as suggested.
    Nev1 (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Can we have a link or some explanation as to what a "Type B" ringwork is?
  • I've removed the mention of Type B ringworks as I don't have a source for what they are. At some point I intend to expand the existing
    Nev1 (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC) The interior of the castle is artificially raised 1.5 metres (4.9 ft) above ground level, making Buckton Castle a Type B ringwork;^[1] no Type B sites have been extensively excavated.^[2][reply
    ]

Ok, I had a quick go at the lead myself to try and smooth it a little more. The reason I took on this review even though there are articles ahead of it is that I don't have a vast amount of time to devote to GA at the moment and consequently I try and push through shorter articles close to the criteria (thus reducing the backlog within my personal time constraints). I am happy to pass this as it is, and well done on the work achieved.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have prepared a re-draft of the article here. I would like to get consensus before moving the draft over because it cites two publication I was involved in writing. It is more detailed than the current article, and brings it up-to-date (it ended after the 2008 excavations). It is largely reliant on the 2012 book, but that's because not a whole lot else has been written about Buckton and it is the most recent and detailed publication about the castle. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me - thanks Nev. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

WT:MILHIST to double check no one minds. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Gday - thanks for the post at WT:MILHIST. I'm no expert on this subject but to me the references in question certainly appear reliable (i.e. they aren't self published etc) and you have declared your involvement so as long as there is consensus here for the changes I don't see any issue with their use as proposed. Anotherclown (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to suggest more work, but a short look at the current article indicates it's fairly decent. Am I missing a reason to start all over, rather than editing the current article? --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lineagegeek: That’s affair question. What I’ve done is use the current article as the starting point for the re-draft. So the arrangement of content is the same, the infobox is still there, and some of the text is reused particularly around the location section. Using the sandbox allows me to show what the new version would look like.

While the current article is good, it is a snapshot of the understanding of the site in 2008, before the excavations were complete. It was based on an interim report written when things were still developing. The book published by the University of Salford incorporates information from the interim report, updates it with information from the final season of fieldwork, and provides an overview of the historical context. For example even the understanding of the extent of the castle has changed. What I’ve aimed to do with the re-draft is add more information and context as well as point towards the most up-to-date source material, so I think I’ve used the relevant information from the current article. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then I agree with HcHc. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your input. I'll copy the stuff across. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buckton Castle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002202037/http://www.pastscape.org.uk/events.aspx?a=0&hob_id=45924 to http://www.pastscape.org.uk/events.aspx?a=0&hob_id=45924

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello if you've stumbled across this page. If you've got any questions about the article, go ahead and put them here. I'll be keeping an eye on the page so I can answer, but it might not be very prompt as Thursday's turned out to be rather busy. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The county is mostly lowland, and Beeston is the only other castle in the area that rises as prominently above the surrounding landscape"

Bollocks.

What about Halton Castle?

Ok it sits within Runcorn now but once it stood prominently on the sandstone ridge above Halton and the River Mersey.

Wikipedia hates experts. It just wants cut and paste artists to plagiarise what has already been written. Proving once again the errors in these works are more important than real facts, real insightful knowledge.81.153.37.76 (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Halton is closer to Buckton than Beeston, so it's fair to say it's in the area. Halton as it does indeed project above the surrounding area, but at Beeston and Buckton the effect is much more pronounced which is what I was trying to get at.

As for Wikipedia hating experts, I certainly don't think that's the case and that hasn't been my experience. We try to be welcoming and encourage people with knowledge and expertise in a subject to contribute. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The caption for the panorama

  

  simply says "Buckton Castle is on a hill 335 metres (1,099 ft) above sea level." Given that there are several prominences in the foreground and more in the mid and far distance it would be useful if the relevant one was identified.

• The 16th-century map

  

  is useful despite being in such low resolution that its text cannot be read. Would it be worthwhile adding a pointer to the castle site? Not something I know how to do.

• The map in the infobox has a red splodge identifying the site but unfortunately the splodge is no longer there when one has clicked on the map to see detail. I cannot help.

• Causeway image

  

  has caption "looking across the entrance causeway" Would 'looking along the entrance causeway across the ditch' be an improvement?

• I would be happy to add Alt text for the images in due course. Is Alt text not a requirement for FAs?SovalValtos (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good points about the images, I'll try to address them this week. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Is Alt text not a requirement for FAs?" - no, not any more, once it was realized some years ago that there was no agreement on what sorts of things it needed to say. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added alt text, so I think that accounts for all of the images. Is there a tool to double check? If not, there aren't too many for me to check over by hand. I've added detail to the image captions. That was especially important for the panorama in the gallery because it shows a view from the castle rather than of it. There's a stitching error about a third from the left, do you think it's obvious it's an error? I thought it still worth including to show the landscape around the castle and how high up it is, but I'm not sure what to do about the stitching. It was done automatically when the photo was taken ten years ago and probably not something that can be edited away.

Buckton isn't shown on the 16th-century map, but I included it to give an idea of its position in the county while using an interesting historic document. I could add an arrow to the position of the castle in MS Paint if that would help? Perhaps the caption should clarify that BUckton isn't actually shown?

As for the infobox map, I'm sure I've seen some maps which are dynamic and allow you to zoom, but obviously this isn't one of them. I'll see if the template allows for different maps as something interactive would be an improvement. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've sorted the dymanic map issue. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]