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
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
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
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?!
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
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
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
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
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