Contents

Talk:Brougham Castle

	Brougham Castle is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 19, 2017.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 1, 2010 Good article nominee Listed April 25, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 7, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Brougham Castle (pictured) was seized by Henry III of England in 1264 when the castle's previous owner died during a rebellion against the king?
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Fortifications / British / European / Medieval 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 Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Architecture Low‑importance 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. England Low‑importance 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. Archaeology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Lancashire and Cumbria Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria 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.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

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

Reviewer: ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 07:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment[edit]

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

Articles passes quick-fail assessment. Main review to follow. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 07:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary concerns[edit]

• The article is generally very well written; however I have taken the liberty to alter a few sentences to improve the flow of the text. These changes are all structural and do not affect the meaning of the material, but include removing sentence fragments, and integrating clauses. If there are problems or concerns with these changes, please revert of contact me for discussion.
• The only other problem with the article concerns overlinking. I have fixed the problems per WP:OVERLINK. Generally, names/terms should only be linked once in an article. Also, well known terms/names such as keep or manor do not need to be wikilinked (though I have left them where they specifically refer to a place).✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 08:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have rephrased a couple of expressions which contain weasal words or which were not in keeping with the sombre and academic tone successfully established in the article. One such example is: "It was under the youngest, Thomas Tufton, 6th Earl of Thanet, that the fortunes of Brougham Castle took a turn for the worse" which I reworked as "It was under the youngest, Thomas Tufton, 6th Earl of Thanet, that Brougham Castle suffered particular neglect". Again, I have not made alterations where the meaning of the sentence would be substantially changed. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 10:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The title "Picturesque ruin" borders on weasaling (picturesque according to whom?), so I have replaced it with "Castle ruin", however another alternative would be fine. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 10:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Final change to the references layout to conform to the way footnotes and notes are generally set out. However, if the originals were in keeping with how castle pages are styles, the changes can be reverted. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 11:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main review[edit]

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a(prose):

   • Very well written. Some minor problems with sentence fragments were encountered, but that is to be expected in such a content-laden article. Problems encountered with fixed.

   b(MoS):

   • Conforms to manual of style. Slight problem with unnecessary linking, but only a minor concern which was easily rectified.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a(references):

   • Well referenced.

   b(citations to reliable sources):

   • Citations are to third party publications.

   c(OR):

   • No evidence of OR.

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a(major aspects):

   • Addresses major aspect of article subject matter.

   b(focused):

   • Remains focused. No digressions. Article remains admirably focused on the subject matter (the castle).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   • No issues concerning POV evident.

5. It is stable:

   • No edit wars etc.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a(images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • Images are properly tagged and justified.

   b(appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Images are accompanied by contextual captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: PASS ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 11:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just put the word Picturesque back in, as the relevant section makes the intended artistic meaning clear: "During the late 18th century, the Lake District became a popular visitor attraction and the sensibilities of Romanticism glamorised historic ruins such as Brougham Castle." (It would help if I'd spelt it correctly in the edit summary though!)--Northernhenge (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to this edit, the article used a royal visit as evidence that the condition of the castle had improved. The edit removed that implication. Do we know if the king stayed at the castle? If so, I assume it would have been in splendid condition. If he just visited and moved on, it could have been in any condition. If he stayed, I think the edit should be reverted (and saying "stayed at" instead of "visited"). If he just visited, the current version seems OK to me. --Northernhenge (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is explained more fully later on in the article: the Earl of Cumberland hosted James at the castle where expensive feasts were held for him. The repairs were carried out by the dowager countess before the earl got his hands on the castle, the royal visit just confirms that Brougham was in a decent state. It's difficult to go into much detail in the lead, but I think the change is ok. The implication that the castle was in a good state by the time James arrived is still there, just a bit weaker. As "visited" could be a bit vague, I've changed it to "entertained at Brougham". How's that? Nev1 (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll undo Dank's edit and reinstate "to such a condition that". I didn't want to do that without checking the context. Thanks. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Nev1 (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template says: "This template is incapable of inflating Capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich." so unfortunately it doesn't seem to apply to Brougham Castle's building costs and probably not to its maintenance costs. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue that's been moving along slowly elsewhere and I've got no objection to removing the estimates so have done so. I don't pretend to have more than a basic grasp of economics and related issues, but I can envisage problems in converting between medieval and modern currency. Nev1 (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brougham Castle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100222090738/http://www.visitcumbria.com:80/pen/brougham.htmtohttp://www.visitcumbria.com/pen/brougham.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it pronounced "brum", "brome", "brug-um", or "broe-um"? Or something else? Please add the pronunciation if possible. 106.68.197.3 (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per the Oxford dictionary, the general word is /ˈbruː(ə)m/.--Adûnâi (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is "the second Roger Clifford" a correct name? I'd change it to "the second Roger de Clifford" at least, but I'm not sure about this either.--Adûnâi (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either works and the two are often used pretty much interchangeably in the sources. Nev1 (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inthis edit I reinstated the names of Vieuxpont's daughters and reinstated a deleted reference. I see the daughters' names, and the reference, have gone again. Does anyone remember why they were removed? I would just put them back, but I'm not about to start an edit war! --Northernhenge (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]