Talk:Penhallam

Penhallam 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 21, 2018. (Reviewed version).

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal 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.

Cornwall Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CornwallWikipedia:WikiProject CornwallTemplate:WikiProject CornwallCornwall-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines:

Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty!
Articles on settlements in Cornwall should be written using the standard set of headings approved by the UK geography WikiProject's guideline How to write about settlements.
At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline.
These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, etc) and should not overflow into other articles.
Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?!

Architecture: Historic houses Low‑importance

	Architecture portal 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.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Fortifications / British / European

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
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help!

Controversy over the site[edit]

Why was this text removed ? - please discuss before removing further text.

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). *Cornish Stannary Parliament tackles cultural aggression in Cornwall *BBC news - Historic signs case trio bound over

The bias of this paragraph is currently being discussed at Talk:Tintagel Castle Putney Bridge 23:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Penhallam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 01:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will review, comments to follow over next few days. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"robbed for its stone": not crazy about "robbed" for an inanimate object, how about scavenged or stripped?

11th century

"either by a one Tryold": not sure if the "one" should be there.

12th-13th centuries

link Robert fitz William, Robert de Cardinham if possible. And is it William or Turold? If William, then it seems to come out of the blue.

14th-21st centuries

"The walls were robbed": as with the lead, not crazy with "robbed". Stripped may work better.
Newly exposed walls? The lead says foundations, and that these were unaltered from the medieval period.

Other stuff

The images appear to have appropriate tags
No dupe links
No DAB links
External links check OK

That's it for me, will check back in a few days for progress. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Zawed.

"Robbed" is the standard verb for removing stones out of walls (also known as "stone robbing").
"one Tyrold" - we don't have his other names, so I'm struggling to find a way of phrasing this without falling back on the "a one" phrase (which is certainly a method of communicating that). Alternatives welcomed, as it's not my favourite construction!
This article has pretty much exhausted the sources on William and Robert, so I doubt that that they're going to have their own articles any time soon... It is William, as surnames didn't really exist in early Anglo-Norman England. Richard Fitz Turold means "Richard, son of Turold", and Robert fitz William similarly means "Robert, son of William" - rather like the Arabic use of "ibn" today. Although once the Cardinhams started calling themselves by that name, these ancestors were were counted as part of the Cardinham family line.
I've had a go at rephrasing the exposed wall bit - see if it makes more sense now! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The changes to the article and the feedback on my comments satisfy me that this article is an appropriate standard for GA. I consider it covers the subject to a good standard using reliable sources. It is well written, appropriately illustrated and is stable. Passing now as GA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]