Wikipedia:Peer review/Castle of Rattray/archive1

Castle of Rattray

I have so far been the only major contributer to this article about an ancient and destroyed Scottish castle.

I am looking for any comments and suggestions as I have contributed as much as I can find (I have no library access) and think now is the time to tidy up the article. I have been looking at this article from some time so it needs a fresh pair of eyes to look over it.

I will not have access to the internet until Monday but will reply to any suggestions after then weekend. thanks in advance, Bobbacon 08:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e's comments

You should include a lead, one or two paragraphs which summarise the article and sit ahead of the main piece. See Windsor Castle for an example: it's the bit that sits in front of the table of contents. See WP:LEAD for more details.
The article is long enough that it can usefully be broken down into sections with headings. Have a look at GA and FA level articles on other castles to get ideas as to what those headings could be, but don't feel you have to slavishly copy them.
I think I'm right in interpreting the map as showing a section of the north-east coast of Scotland, but it's not quite clear that the area north of the line is the sea. Is the grey area between the castles of Lonmay and Rattray Loch Strathbeg? Perhaps an arrow could be added to make that clearer?
The relationship between the different castles on the site isn't clear (to me anyway!). I read it as follows:

-Unknown date to ~1214 Timber motte and bailey castle, date of building unknown

-~1214 to 1308 William Comyn's timber castle (either an upgrade of "the existing buildings on the motte" or a new castle). Destroyed or fell into ruin in 1308.

-Unknown date to 1720. Stone castle, possibly buried during the 1720 storm.

If that is correct, that would be one way of structuring the piece, which would I think help to clarify the various developments on the site.

On a similar point, the article starts off with "It was a small, late middle age, 12th century "timber castle or Motte", but the article also covers the (much?) later stone castle as well. I suggest the lead could start: "The Castle of Rattray was a medieval castle, originally built as a timber motte and bailey in ??. It was rebuilt by William Comyn at some time between 1214 and 1233 before being destroyed in 1308. It was later replaced by a stone castle, which is believed to have been partially buried under sand dunes in a storm in 1720."
Although I have some concerns about the clarity of the structure, the writing itself seems good. There is some redundancy, though:

-"Castlehill was specifically found" Why not just "Castlehill was found"? Or even "Castlehill was"?

-"Building upon the Castlehill mound after his arrival" Why not just "Building on the Castlehill mound"? Arrival from where?

- "or built an entirely new castle" Why not "or built a new castle"?

- "found" is often used to give the position of the castle - can you just say that the castle is or was somewhere, rather than is or was found somewhere?

- "Some of which" (referring to superiors) Should be "Some of whom"?

- "What is known is that at some point..." Why not "At some point..."? Or perhaps better "At some time...?

- "There is a less likely story that..." Should probably be "There is another story that", since the sentence finishes "...and it is a very unlikely account".

- "Castlehill was thoroughly excavated in 1985-1989 and revealed the remains of..." should probably be something like: "Thorough excavations at Castlehill in 1985-1989 revealed the remains of..."

At present, the various discoveries at the site are not in chronological order - consider whether it would be clearer to treat them that way.
According to the article on Rattray, the 1720 storm also destroyed the village. Should this be mentioned?

I hope this is helpful (it's meant to be!). Good luck with the article. Cheers. 4u1e 10:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, i've implemented your suggestions! I know nothing about the article that you're working on but will have a look at it all the same and make some suggestions next couple of days! thanks, Bobbacon 08:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble. Would be grateful for your comments on BT19, particularly on the question of whether the article makes sense to someone who's not familiar with the subject. And for that matter, is it of any interest? ;-) 4u1e 14:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]