| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roslin Castle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Roslin Castle 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Comments
editI merged Rosslyn Castle into this article, rather than the other way round. The RCAHMS calls it Roslin, with Rosslyn listed as an alternative. Google gives 16,200 hits for "Roslin Castle" vs 684 for "Rosslyn Castle". ::Supergolden:: 16:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The owner of the castle, the Earl of Rosslyn (not Roslin), calls his castle Rosslyn Castle. He also calls the associated chapel (which he also owns) Rosslyn Chapel. Wikipedia also calls the chapel Rosslyn Chapel (but RCAHMS calls it Roslin Chapel). The Landmark Trust which currently manages and lets the castle calls it Rosslyn Castle (I've stayed there). It's generally accepted in the UK that you can call your house what you want, and the Earl calls his castle Rosslyn Castle, so that's its name. The former railway station nearby was named Rosslyn Castle Station. It's generally accepted that the village is Roslin, but that the castle and chapel are Rosslyn, and RCAHMS is just on a harmonisation kick by claiming that Rosslyn is not the primary name for either castle or chapel. Simhedges (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
There are a few problems with this article.
First the lead needs to summarize the article, see Wikipedia:Lead section, or the relevant part of that page is
- "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."
Second, the current consensus on for GAs is that they should have a reference for each paragraph. Simple descriptive statements don't need references, so the Architecture section is fine with the references it has. The history section's second and third paragraphs are more problematic. They are an important part of the article, so they should have references that allow people to double check the dates and happenings they describe.
Finally, the books in the references section don't have detailed listings with an ISBN number. This can be added by hand, or you might think about using Template:Cite book for formatting them. It would nice if publisher info was added as well, although this is not a sticking point.
I poked around in the history, and it doesn't look like the nominator wrote the article, and the article hasn't been worked on in a while, so figuring out which info came from which book may be impossible at this point. I'll give people a bit of time to respond and see if they want to fix it, if not I'll post this as a failed GA nominee. - Peregrine Fisher 22:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Peregrine. Actually I wrote much of the article under my previous identity "Edward Waverley", so I should be able to add inline refs as recommended. Your other points I concur with too - I have added ISBN numbers, though the publisher for each book is already given. Hopefully I will address your comments by the end of the week. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck 08:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Cool, it's pretty close to GA, so good luck. - Peregrine Fisher 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I think I've done what I can, please go ahead and complete your assessment. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck 08:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nice work. I have listed this article as a GA. - Peregrine Fisher 18:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)