Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buckton Castle/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2018 [1].

Buckton Castle

Nominator(s): Richard Nevell (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buckton Castle isn't the kind of historic site that interests most people as there are no ruins to explore or inspire the imagination. The view over the east of Greater Manchester is impressive it you catch the weather on a good day. But as one of the earliest stone castles in the region, and one of the few that have been excavated, it is an important site and one that interests me at least since I excavated there for two (I think) seasons.

The article is based largely on the book published in 2012 about the excavations as it is the most recent comprehensive source available (worth noting that I'm one of the authors). Fieldwork finished in 2010, and interpretation of the site is unlikely to change in the near future. I've tried to ensure a good level of detail without putting the reader off, but in a nutshell there isn't a whole lot know about Buckton Castle so there are quite a few ifs and maybes. All feedback is gratefully received! Richard Nevell (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SN54129

Nice little article, Richard Nevell; I for one wouldn't criticise ifs and maybes, as working on any period such as this, that is precisely the language the RSs take—and for good reason. Couple of minor points to kick off with.

You use "gatepassage"; I think separate words are favoured?
But mainly, images. You've a MOS:SANDWICHING issue in the Construction and use section, and I wonder if they could generally be tidied up a little? It's quite image heavy (don't think that's a problem in itself), so their (dis?)arrangement stands out all the more. I'd favour a more symmetric approach, and perhaps something can be done to tighten the prose around those landscape pictures; what do you think?
Also, for acreage and distances, convert them.
—SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Having 'gate passage' as two separate words is pretty widely done, so I've changed that. I've added an extra conversion to the text. Hopefully that's all of them – the layout section is strewn with them. I've removed the image of pottery for now (though the licence might get sorted) which helps a bit. I put an image gallery at the end of the layout section to avoid having the images run into the next section. I've tried the same with the location section which seems to work ok. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Eric Corbett

I've yet to check through the article in any great detail, but one point sticks out for me. A small one, but nevertheless ...

The lead states without qualification that the castle site was used as a beacon during the Pilmigrage of Grace, but the Later history and investigation section is a little more circumspect, stating that "The site of the castle may have been used as a beacon in the 16th century, first during the Pilgrimage of Grace ...", my bold. Eric Corbett 19:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, the lead should have been less definite on that point; I'll keep an eye out for similar inconsistencies. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The {{citation}} template you've used – which I like as well – automatically generates links between the citations and the sources, but you have to create those links in the text by using either {{Harvnb}} or {{sfnp}}. I prefer {{sfnp}}, to which I've converted most of your citations. But creating those links has exposed an otherwise difficult to spot error; is it "Harley & Newman" or "Hartley & Newman"?

That's a handy spot; I'll double check the spelling – probably tomorrow night. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been able to double check and it is Hartley rather than Harley, which the article now reflects. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Medieval_body_sherd_of_an_unglazed_Pennine_(or_Northern)_gritty_ware_(FindID_564839).jpg: the Photographer section on the image description states this is all rights reserved?
File:Plan_of_Buckton_Castle_by_George_Ormerod.JPG is missing a source and US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the source to the Ormerod plan. I'm not sure what's up with the image from the Portable Antiquities Scheme; a lot of their images are under an open licence but as you say that one has 'all rights reserved' on it for some reason. I'll try to get to the bottom of it, but until it's sorted I've removed the image from the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tim riley

This is an excellent and enjoyable article, and I look forward to supporting its promotion to FA. A few small drafting points first:

Location
- "Cheshire has far fewer castles per square kilometre" – by coincidence I have just quoted Fowler on "per" at another FAC: "It is affected to use Latin when English will serve as well; so much a year is better than per annum and much better than per year", but I think your "per" here is justified because I can't think of as concise an alternative way of saying what you have to say.
- "Most of the county's castles are close to the western border, and the eastern parts of Cheshire were amongst the poorest." – I don't follow this. The two halves of the sentence don't seem to relate to each other. It isn't clear to the lay person how the wealth or poverty of an area affects the number of castles built there.
- Third paragraph: I don't know if others would disagree or agree with me, but an unattributed quotation such as the one you end the para with seems to me pointless unless you tell us in the text that this is what the such-and-such expert So-and-So says. Here, I think the sentence would have much more impact if you put the quote in context by attributing it inline to "the archaeologist [or historian, whichever is appropriate] Rachel Swallow".
History
- "It is likely that the castle was built by one of the earls of Chester, partly because of the cost and partly because Cheshire was a palatine county." – I think I know what this is supposed to convey, but it isn't what you have actually said. The cost and the palatinate relate to the likelihood, not to the earls. Just shifting the end of the sentence to the middle will do the trick: "It is likely, partly because of the cost and partly because Cheshire was a palatine county, that the castle was built by one of the earls of Chester". Or "Partly because of the cost and partly because Cheshire was a palatine county, it is likely that the castle was built by one of the earls of Chester".
- "it and much of northern England come under Scottish control" – either "came" or "had come", I imagine?
- "finished, however" – if you must have "however" here you need a stronger punctuation mark than a comma. I'd go a plain "but", which is both shorter and OK after a comma.
Later history and investigation
- "an Iron Age hillfort, however a study" – another however with a comma.
- "However, this was before" – this "however" seems to serve no purpose at all.
Layout
- "There are six stone gatehouses in the region which were built in the 12th or 13th centuries" – it isn't immediately clear whether this is a restrictive (defining) clause or a non-restrictive (describing) one. In short, are there six stone gatehouses in the region, all of which were built in the 12th or 13th centuries or more than six, of which these six were built in the 12th or 13th centuries? If the former, I'd add a comma before the clause: "There are six stone gatehouses in the region, which were built…" If the latter a comma-less "that" is wanted: "There are six stone gatehouses in the region that were built…"
- "Trenches in the castle's interior did not find the structures" – do trenches find things? Might "reveal" be bettter here?
- "robbing activity" – a strange phrase. Does it differ from theft?
- "There is a spoil heap-like feature" – hyphens can cause all sorts of tangles, and the one here can be avoided by juggling the words about: "There is a feature like a spoil-heap", or, perhaps better, "There is a feature resembling a spoil heap".

I hope these few minor comments are of use. – Tim riley talk 11:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thanks for the comments.

Location

I can't think of an alternative to 'per square kilometre' so I'll leave there where it is.
With this sentence I was trying to show that it's less common for there to be a castle in this part of the county, but tried to do too much at once. It it just says 'most of the castles are near the border with Wales' the reader will conclude that it's all about warfare which is true to an extent but there were economic factors as well which is what I tried to include. But that sentence just wasn't working as it seemed like two separate ideas. Hopefully by inverting the second half it now gels together.
I was mulling over the attribution the other day, and I think it does make sense to give some context to the quote so I've mentioned who said it.

History

I see what you mean. I think it's worth explaining why the bit about Cheshire being a palatine county is relevant, so I've tried "Partly because of the cost and partly because Cheshire was a palatine county in which the earl had authority over who was permitted to build castles, it is likely that the castle was built by one of the earls of Chester."
Oops, I probably had 'had come' and then decided 'came' was preferable and didn't quite manage the change. Thanks for spotting that.
I've swapped 'however' for 'but'.

Later history and investigation

I've swapped 'however' again to avoid repetition as there's a sentence later in the paragraph which starts with 'however'.
However seems to be one of those words I've not quite got the hang of! I've removed it.

That's it for now, but I will of course come back to this and the comments by others later. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

That's absolutely right, I hadn't spotted that it could be read two ways. I've amended as suggested.
Good point, 'reveal' makes more sense than 'find'.
It's a bit of jargon really (archaeologists often refer to walls which have been removed as 'robbed out'), but theft doesn't quite cover it so I've tweaked the sentence.
That's a much tidier way of putting it, so I've used your phrasing. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Factotem

Lead

Given that nothing remains, is it correct to refer to the castle in the present tense; "Buckton Castle is..." (lead), "Buckton Castle lies..." (Location), etc.? The tense gets mixed up a little in the Layout section; the first two paras start with "Buckton is...", the third with "Buckton Castle was...". Compare Buckton is a small highland enclosure castle with a 2.8-metre (9 ft 2 in) thick sandstone curtain wall. in the "Layout" section with It was surrounded by a 2.8-metre (9 ft) wide stone curtain wall in the lead.
I'm not sure you've used the convert template adjective parameter quite correctly. {{convert|2.8|m|ft|0|adj=mid|-wide}} will get you "2.8-metre-wide (9 ft)", which I believe is the correct way to represent the size of the curtain wall in that sentence. Similar issue with the convert template used in the "Layout" section.
"...and a ditch 10 metres (3 ft) wide by 6 metres (20 ft) deep" would eliminate the slightly inelegant "and...and".
Between 1996 and 2010 Buckton Castle was investigated by archaeologists as part of the Tameside Archaeology Survey, first the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit then the University of Salford's Centre for Applied Archaeology. The use of "investigated" seems wrong to me, and the second clause seems to miss a "by" or two. Maybe "Between 1996 and 2010 Buckton Castle was the subject of two archaeological excavations, first by the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit and then by the University of Salford's Centre for Applied Archaeology."?

Location

During the Middle Ages, Buckton Castle was at the eastern end of Cheshire. The county shared its western border with Wales. -> "During the Middle Ages, Buckton Castle was at the eastern end of Cheshire, a county which shared (shares?) its western border with Wales."? Starting that sentence with a statement of time made me wonder. I understand from the Tintwistle article that the area now lies in Derbyshire, so Both castle and valley were in the medieval manor of Tintwistle. might be better written "Both castle and valley were in the medieval manor of Tintwistle, now a parish in Derbyshire." I'm assuming here that Tintwistle is a parish and no longer a manor.
A manor was a division of land and administered by... I don't think that "and" should be in there.
Cheshire is a mostly lowland area, and Beeston is the only other castle as pronounced in the surrounding landscape -> "The county is mostly lowland, and Beeston is the only other castle in the area that rises as prominently above the surrounding landscape."?

History

The earliest castles in England typically used timber... -> "The earliest castles in England were typically constructed from timber...", and do you think this sentence would go better as the first sentence in this paragraph?
...during which the ditch was created... "dug" instead of "created"?
My first thought was that "sherd" was a typo for "shard", so a link to sherds would be helpful.
The castle is first mentioned in 1360... This information is repeated in the "Later history" section, where I think it's better placed. And again, it indicates tense confusion - here you use the present tense, the second time the past tense.
It is likely that the castle was built by one of the earls of Chester, partly because of the cost and partly because Cheshire was a palatine county and the earl had authority over who was permitted to build castles. The last part of the sentence suggests an earl could grant castle-building authority to someone else, and therefore does not support the statement at the beginning of the sentence that the castle was likely built by an earl. Was it the case that the earl had an authority to build castles on his own initiative that nobles in non-palatine counties did not? If so, then maybe "...Cheshire was a palatine county, giving earls the authority to build castles" would be better, at least in eliminating another "and...and" construction?
The earls were involved in the civil war of King Stephen’s reign in the middle of the 12th century commonly known as the Anarchy and the revolt against Henry II in 1173–74, both of which may have prompted castle building. -> "The construction of the castle may have been prompted by the earls' involvement in the the Anarchy, a civil war during King Stephen’s reign in the middle of the 12th century, or the Revolt of 1173–74 against Henry II"?
Ranulf de Gernon, 4th Earl of Chester wanted control of the earldom of Carlisle but during the Anarchy it and much of northern England come under Scottish control. The construction of Buckton Castle may have been to safeguard Cheshire. It's not clear why Carlisle is relevant. Maybe "Ranulf de Gernon, 4th Earl of Chester, may have built Buckton Castle to safeguard Cheshire during the Anarchy, when much of northern England had come under Scottish control"? Even if not, "4th Earl of Chester" needs a comma after it.
The dearth of artefacts recovered from Buckton Castle, and the lack of finely finished stonework, might indicate that the site was never finished, however the re-cutting of the ditch suggests either an extended period of occupancy or abandonment followed by repairs to the fortifications. The dearth either indicates or it does not, surely? Not sure you need that "might" there. I would also start a separate sentence with "However, the re-cutting...".

Later history and investigation

In the 18th century, people began treasure hunting at Buckton Castle, and in 1767 there were reports that one such venture had discovered a gold necklace and a silver vessel, though these artefacts have since been lost. I'd be tempted to split this sentence, "...at Buckton Castle. In 1767..."
In the 20th century it was suggested that Buckton Castle may have been an Iron Age hillfort, however... Either break this sentence into two, starting the second with "However...", or keep as one but replace "however" with "though"?
Since 1924, the castle has been designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument[23] which is intended to protect important archaeological sites from change. -> "In 1924, the castle was designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument, a program designed to protect important archaeological sites from change."?
...examine a possible outer bailey. As a result, the possible outer bailey was revealed to be a 20th-century feature and was probably related to nearby mining activity. Repetition of "possible outer bailey". Maybe "The latter was revealed to be a 20th-century feature, probably related to nearby mining activity."?
On two occasions (1999 and 2002) illegal digging by unknown parties... -> "Illegal digging by unknown parties in 1999 and 2002..."
More than 60 volunteers were involved in the excavations between 2007 and 2010, including the Tameside Archaeological Society, the South Trafford Archaeological Group, and the South Manchester Archaeological Research Team as well as university students. The "as well as university students" reads as if something is missing. Is it possible to name the university and amend the sentence to "More than 60 volunteers were involved in the excavations between 2007 and 2010, including teams from the Tameside Archaeological Society, the South Trafford Archaeological Group, and the South Manchester Archaeological Research Team, supported by students from ??? university."?

Layout

Buckton Castle was entered through a gatehouse in the north-west. It is 9.3 metres (31 ft) wide and 7.5 metres (25 ft) deep. -> "Buckton Castle was entered from the north-west through a 9.3-metre-wide (31 ft) by 7.5-metre-deep (25 ft) gatehouse.
The east side was occupied by the gate passage and the west a chamber. by a chamber?
...until the late 20th century the overgrowth disguised the fact that it was a stone structure. -> "...until the late 20th century, vegetation obscured the existence of a stone structure."?

Hope this helps. Factotem (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Factotem, thanks for taking the time to go through the article. I've replied to your comments below.

Lead

Nothing survives above ground, but there are the remains of a castle just beneath the surface so I think it makes sense to say 'Buckton Castle is'. Past tense is used when describing the ditch because the measurement refers to the original measurements rather than the current depth.
That's a good trick, I've used that in the article.
That would help with avoiding repetition so I've made the change.
'Investigated' is pretty nebulous but used by the likes of [https://www.mola.org.uk/olympic-park-archaeological-investigations Museum of London Archaeology. I chose it because it covers topographical survey as well as excavation. I've added 'by' as suggested, but wonder if you would be happy sticking with 'investigated'?

Location

Thanks for the suggestions, that short sentence had been bugging me a little. I used past tense because the site is now in Greater Manchester, but that's only since 1974 so I've not dwelt on it.
Agreed and removed.
That's clearer, so I've changed it.

History

I hadn't considered that. I had been arranging it chronologically and then explained why the paleoenvironmental evidence was relevant, but re-ordering it makes sense and means it starts a bit less abruptly.
Changed to 'ditch was dug'.
Of course, that really should be linked.
That's fair I don't think the first mention needs to be in that section especially since the same point opens the next section.

That's as far as I've got tonight, more anon. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted this sentence based on some feedback above and have added more detail so it's clearer why the earl's authority over castle building is relevant. Hopefully that clears it up, but let me know if it needs more work.
Re-ordering the sentence makes it clearer so I've shifted it around as suggested.
To be fair, Carlisle isn't directly relevant to the point that Buckton may have been built to protect Cheshire so I've removed that bit and explained that a lot of northern England was under Scottish control.
Maybe you could be right about that one, so I've removed the hedging. As noted above I'm not the best judge of when to use 'however' – I tend to overuse it, not just here! – so I'm going to err on the side of sticking with 'but' as the contrast is still clear.

Later history and investigation

Those sentences stand on their own so I've split them as suggested.
This sentence was changed after some feedback above.
Being a scheduled ancient monument isn't a programme as such, so I'll stick with the current wording.
That's much better, thanks for that.
Done.
I've tried some different wording to see if that works.

Layout

I've merged the two sentences but removed 'wide' and 'deep' because the latter sounded a bit odd, as if the foundations go down a long way.
Done.

@Factotem: Thanks again for going through the article, those changes helped iron out a few points which I hadn't picked up on myself. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with the above, but:

I still find it odd that you write about the castle in the present tense when there is no castle visible, not even ruins. Those first three words set up an expectation of a structure, and it was discordant to see none in the lead image, and a bit of a surprise to later learn that there is nothing left above ground.
You've kept the phrase "used timber" in the "Construction and use" section. "The earliest castles were constructed from timber..." is, I think, more the level of concision that FAC tends to demand.
In the 4th para of that section, ...Cheshire has fewer per square kilometre... Might be worth explicitly stating that Chester has fewer castles per square kilometre, just to make it clear that you're not referring to the earls, which is where the sentence immediately preceding ended up on. Also, your edits have broken the end of the last sentence in that section (Ranulf de Gernon, 4th Earl of Chester wanted control of the earldom of Carlisle but d), and however it ends, "4th Earl of Chester" is parenthetical and still needs a comma after it.
There's another instance of ditches being created instead of dug in the first sentence of the "Layout" section. Factotem (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Factotem: In the end I've gone with the past tense for the lead to describe the castle; it's a steep walk uphill if you're expecting there to be walls. I've also swapped 'used timber' for 'constructed from timber', I think I just missed that one. And added in 'fewer castles' to make it clear what I'm walking about. And finally, I ditched 'created' and swapped it for 'dug'. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hchc2009

An interesting site. In terms of FA standards, I think that the text needs a little bit of work; in places it feels stylistically like an archaeological report rather than an encyclopaedia article, and there's a little bit of repetition.

"first the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit" - "first by"? Feels like there's a word missing
"The castle was probably built in the 12th century, but fell out of use soon after." - I didn't think this matched up with the main text, which says "The dearth of artefacts recovered from Buckton Castle, and the lack of finely finished stonework, might indicate that the site was never finished, however the re-cutting of the ditch suggests either an extended period of occupancy or abandonment followed by repairs to the fortifications." - if it may have been occupied for an "extended period", it didn't necessarily fall of out use quickly, surely?
The location and history sections cut backwards and forwards somewhat; I found it odd to be talking about a garrison and a surrounding manor, for example, before we've established when the castle was built.
"in Tintwistle's case it was part of the larger lordship of Longdendale." seems to lack a citation
"Compared to Herefordshire and Shropshire, which were also on the Anglo-Welsh border, Cheshire has far fewer castles per square kilometre. Most of the county's castles are close to the western border, and the eastern parts of Cheshire were amongst the poorest. " - I wasn't sure what this was trying to tell the reader about Buckton Castle - is there any way to rephrase it to focus back on the subject of the article?
"Construction and use" - this section doesn't actually say clearly that the castle was probably built in the 12th century; it might be worth spelling it out, as per the lead.
"but during the Anarchy it and much of northern England come under Scottish control" - "came"?
"Pennine Gritty Ware" - any way of linking this, or covering off in a footnote what it is? (or, if it's just a kind of pottery, it might worth simplifying the language a bit)
"the re-cutting of the ditch" - is there dating for this? I note that the infobox suggests that the castle was completed by the "late 12th century".
"and finally deliberate demolition" - I thought this needed explaining a bit further. If we're saying that the castle was deliberately pulled down, it needs highlighting in the lead and in the history. At the moment, we say that it was demolished, but only say that "These conflicts would also have provided a context for the deliberate destruction of the castle" - why, how, etc.?
"This usage may have been reprised in 1803 when a beacon hut is recorded near Mossley" - is Mossley near the castle? We haven't mentioned it previously.
"and later in the 1580s when the country was under threat of invasion" - worth noting who would have been invading?
"and in 1767 there were reports that one such venture had discovered a gold necklace and a silver vessel, though these artefacts have since been lost." - the first half implies that the discoveries might not be entirely true (otherwise, why mention "reports"?); the second half seems more definite that they *were* found and are known to have been lost.
"In the 20th century it was suggested that Buckton Castle may have been an Iron Age hillfort, however a study of hillforts in Cheshire and Lancashire found that Buckton was topographically different from these sites and therefore unlikely to have been built in the Iron Age.[21] Excavation in the 1990s demonstrated that the site was medieval, with no sign of earlier activity" - this feels out of sequence, since you then have a major section on modern archaeology two para's later. Also unclear if the 1990s archaeology is the same as that mentioned later, or something different. "it was suggested" - by who?
"It had also been suggested that the castle was a ringwork – a type of fortification where earthworks formed an integral part of the defence." - ditto, who did the suggesting?
"Buckton is a small highland enclosure castle with a 2.8-metre (9 ft 2 in) thick sandstone curtain wall." - unsure from the lead if the wall is still there or not...? Ditto tense of other remains.
"Constructed in the mid to late 12th century, Buckton’s gatehouse is the earliest in North West England" - the dating here seems expressed differently to the dating before ("probably 12th century", "Completed: Late 12th century" Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article Hchc2009. The style is probably partly due to the source material and partly because I was in the middle of writing a thesis when wrote this draft. There is also more emphasis on the archaeology than most other articles partly because with relatively little known about the site, the investigations actually form a substantial part of the site's 'biography'. Also since the investigations were restricted to just a few years, it's a relatively straightforward story to tell. Hopefully it hasn't gone overboard.

'by' added after feedback above.
I was operating on different timescales when I wrote that bit. In the lead 'fell out of use soon after' really means 'wasn't in continuous uses for a couple of centuries' whereas the main text lays out the slightly conflicting evidence. I've simplified it to 'The castle was probably built in the 12th century and was first mentioned in 1360, by which time it was lying derelict.'
I see what you mean. My preference is to treat the 'location' as (quite literally) setting and having it early on. I included information on the manor and stuff to give some context to the landscape. Would it be as simple as moving the section after 'history' do you think?
~~I'll root around for the reference and add something for the bit about Tintwistle.~~ Just added the citations for Tintwistle being in the lordship of Longdendale. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'll take a closer look at this.~~ What I was trying to do with this part was show that Cheshire is a bit unusual compared to Herefordshire and Shropshire without going into the why which is mentioned later in the article. There's a similar issue with the economic aspect, which is explained later on. I'm struggling at the moment to weave this in without sounding repetitive in a short article, but if you think it's worth it I'll keep trying. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...ah. Thanks for spotting that, I've made the construction date more explicit in the body of the article.
Mercifully I've sorted this one.
We don't have an article sadly and while there's an image on Commons which could help make this bit interesting I've not heard back from the uploader about the licence issue. I was tempted to just say 'pottery' but with only four sherds it seemed a shame not to be specific. I'll have a think about including a footnote. Or perhaps I should see if there's enough to write an article about Pennine Gritty Ware.
I don't think so, but I'll double check. Unfortunately, no absolute dating evidence was recovered for the re-cutting of the ditch so we can only put it in a relative sequence. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~I went light on the details of the slighting since it relates to the topic of my thesis. I'll have a think about how to deal with this and keep my additions to 3,000 words or less.~~ The slighting is now mentioned in the lead, and I've tried to explain the reasons for slighting in the 'construction and use' section. 'These conflicts would also have provided a context for the deliberate destruction of the castle' really was going too light on detail.
I've explained that Mossley is a settlement very close to the castle. I've mentioned Carrbrook and Mossley only in passing because they're not important in the medieval landscape but can add more if you think it's useful context for the later history.

That's all for now. I'll try to return to this tomorrow or Wednesday but failing that it'll be next week as I've got my viva coming up on Friday. Some wally thought it would be a good idea to nominate something at FAC at the same time. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hchc2009: Sorry for the delay, it's been a busy old week but I'll get round to addressing the rest of your comments soon. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained that it was the Spanish who were likely to invade.
I've changed the wording to say that while most of the treasure hunting seems not to have uncovered anything of note the 1767 digging did find something.
I'm not keen on being vague like this, but it's one of those things which is difficult to attribute. Forde-Johnson discussed Buckton and how topologically it didn't look like a hillfort so dismissed it as such, and was speaking to a standing assumption that it was but I haven't found the initial who. Since the haziness around suggesting it was a ringwork has been resolved below, do you think it would be ok to leave the ambiguity here? I've also moved this part further down, as it didn't quite fit with the chronology and cleared up the year in which the site was established as medieval.
I've put that it was King and Alcock.
I've swapped to past tense (and have done so in the lead) and explained that the wall isn't still standing.
The 'completed' field of the infobox wasn't updated when I refreshed the rest of the article so I've opted for the broader '12th century'. Because dating evidence is so sparse and 'mid to late 12th century' to my mind could run from about 1135 to 1200 it's not a terribly helpful description so I've dropped it. The 'history' section further up should give a better idea of when it is likely the site was in use.

Richard Nevell (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Two-thirds of the citations are to a single source, Grimsditch et al 2012, but I expect this reflects its status as the best source on the subject. The sources are impeccably presented and are all of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Johnbod

Nice work - a couple of additional comments on the start:

"Buckton Castle is a medieval enclosure castle near Carrbrook, Stalybridge, England" - county/metro area here please
"Buckton is one of the earliest stone castles in North West England" - if none of the stone is now visible, maybe this should be clarified here? Presumably most the stone was removed, which is nowhere said, nor if some remains underground.
That's it. Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Johnbod. I've added that the site is in Greater Manchester and clarified that nothing survives above ground. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks - now Support Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

Great topic, but you may not be surprised to hear that I've never heard of the castle.

"It was first mentioned in 1360" Surely that's not true; what you mean is that it appears in the historical record in 1360, or something?
I'm not sold on the four short paragraphs for the lead; I'd think about consolidating into two longer paragraphs. Also, I feel "The site is overgrown with heather and peat, and there are no above-ground ruins." probably belongs earlier on; I think some readers might feel a little "cheated" to find out the castle they've been reading about doesn't quite match what they have in their mind's eye!
"in Tintwistle's case it was part of the larger lordship of Longdendale." Comma? Ref?
"archaeologist Rachel Swallow" As was drilled into me in a previous FAC of my own, false titles are often considered nonstandard/informal in British English.
I'm not sure I'm particularly sold on the two "stacked" images. The map is surely going to need to be clicked before it can be seriously perused; I'd drop it to a thumbnail (perhaps after a crop!)
"The castle is first mentioned in 1360" As above. I was struck by the lack of dates earlier in that same paragraph- can we be no more specific than "medieval"? Just how long are we talking between construction and slighting?
"earldom of Carlisle" Wikilink?
"William de Neville" Link? Don't be scared of redlinks if the subjects are notable.
"Tameside Council" Wikilink?
"antiquarian Thomas Percival" False title again

I like this article (I particularly enjoyed the "Later history and investigation") and commend you for the work you've put into it. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback J Milburn, sorry for the delay in replying – it took me this long to recover from the shock that you hadn't heard of this place. I'm glad you like the article, I hope it makes an interesting read and even pretty obscure sites can have an interesting history particularly into the modern period.

On reflection, it does sound a bit like no one so much as has a conversation about the castle before 1360. It's fairly common phrasing, but what it of course means is the earliest surviving record of the site is from 1360 which is what I've now put in the lead.
Yes, the lead didn't really need to be split into four like that. That's also a good point about mentioning earlier what people should expect, so I've moved it to the start of the third sentence.
~~Still need to sort this from one of the comments above, but I will get round to it.~~ Now referenced and with a comma.
I think it's worth explaining to the reader why this person's opinion is relevant so have gone with 'According to Rachel Swallow, an archaeologist' which seems to work.

Yes; what I meant was that you should refer to her as "the archaeologist Rachel Swallow", rather than "archaeologist Rachel Swallow". Josh Milburn (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, that's a much tidier way of doing it so I've popped that into the article and used the same approach when I mentioned Percival. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the two images side-by-side, the map is essentially decorative. The article could do without it as there's a modern map further up, and the main reason I've included it is because people like old maps and there are only so many photos you can have of this castle and its landscape before it all starts to blur together. I've given it a slight crop, but you would still need to click on the image to bring out any detail and the castle isn't marked on the map. If you think it's worth getting rid of it, I can happily remove it.
I removed the bit about 1360 in the 'construction and use' section since it was sued to open the 'later history and investigation' section. We're sorely lacking firm dating evidence for the few phases at the castle, but I'll add a bit more in to say '12th century' and give some relative idea of when the slighting took place.
Factotem pointed out that it wasn't entirely clear how the earldom of Carlisle fitted into the picture, so rather than go off on a tangent I decided to remove that bit.
Redlink added for William de Neville.
I've also added a link to Tameside council.
Like with the one earlier, I've tried to deal with this by rearranging the sentence slightly. So now it reads 'In the 1770s, Thomas Percival, an antiquarian, recorded a well within the castle, close to the south curtain, and walls...'. There are quite a few commas there, so what do you reckon?

Thanks again and I'll put a note here when I've done a bit more as I wasn't able to resolve all your comments in one go. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Just to check status, Richard, it looks to me that you've completed actioning the comments of Tim riley and Hchc2009, and you're still working through Josh Milburn's -- is that correct? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I'd be interested in Josh's thoughts on the map in the 'location' section, but I think I've addressed the rest of the issues (albeit I didn't leave a note on here like I said I would). Richard Nevell (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I confess that it doesn't bother me now; I'm not sure if something's changed or I've just warmed to it! I like the image a lot, so I'm glad it's in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harry

This seems well on its way but I'll offer a few comments:

The link on "volunteers" looks like a bit of an Easter egg
The castle, close to the Buckton Vale Quarry, is a Scheduled Ancient Monument: is its proximity to the quarry relevant to its scheduled status?
I believe we need an inline citation at the end of the paragraph beginning "Partly because of the cost"

I fixed a typo but but that's the extent of the criticisms I can make. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, thanks for the support and fixing the typo.

It was a bit Easter eggy so I've changed the sentence to specifically use the phrase 'community archaeology'.
The scheduled area runs pretty much up to the edge of the quarry. It's not mentioned in the Historic England scheduled note, just visible on the map. I've explained in the body of the text that scheduling helped protect the site from the expanding quarry in the 1920s, but don't want to go into detail in the lead in case it sounds like the quarry is a threat today.
Good spot, I split the paragraph and forgot to copy the reference. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.