Template:Did you know nominations/Earlstoun Castle

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.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Earlstoun Castle

(
)
Earlstoun Castle
Earlstoun Castle
  • ... 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."

Moved to mainspace by Girth Summit (talk). Self-nominated at 13:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC).

  • 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)
  1. Uninhabited -
  2. 1600 as a construction date
  3. Location
So just the lead/body cite issues and new hook ideas (or a rewrite) to address. Bruxton (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
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.
Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 21:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@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)
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. Girth Summit (blether) 23:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
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 Girth Summit (blether) 09:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@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 (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
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).
I've also changed the picture, since you were concerned about the size of the subject in the original - see what you think. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 14:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@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.

*ALT3 ...defence was not a significant factor in the design or placement of Earlstoun Castle (pictured) which was unusual for a sixteenth century tower house? Bruxton (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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?
Are we good now? Thanks Girth Summit (blether) 15:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Bruxton (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)