Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cefnllys Castle/archive1

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 November 2020 [1].

---

Cefnllys Castle

Nominator(s): Jr8825 • Talk 23:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a largely forgotten medieval castle, once a crucial frontier outpost in the most volatile part of the Welsh Marches, now reduced to rubble on an isolated ridge. My curiosity was piqued after coming across the stub a few weeks ago, and I was surprised to learn that the castles (there were in fact 3 successive castles, spanning 400 years of history) played a major role in English attempts to subjugate the independent Welsh princes. The strategic location made it a focal point of the conflict, and the building of the final castle at Cefnllys – following a Welsh siege which had destroyed the second – helped cause the final conquest of Wales. Its later history, and the failed castle town, also provide an insight into the social history of the Marches.

The article has undergone a peer review, with helpful input from @Dudley Miles:, @Catlemur: and @J Milburn: following their feedback I feel it's ready for featured article candidacy. I look forward to hearing your comments and addressing any potential issues, thanks in advance, Jr8825 • Talk 23:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Some images are marked OTRS pending—this should be resolved before promotion. (t · c) buidhe 03:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Buidhe: understood. Happily the local archaeological trust and a historian have both agreed to donate aerial imagery for the article over the last couple of days, so there'll be roughly a 2-3 week wait (given the current size of the Commons OTRS backlog) until these are processed. I hope that I can use this time to resolve any concerns that may be raised by peer reviewers. Jr8825 • Talk 22:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  The OTRS permission has now been updated on all of the images. Jr8825 • Talk 12:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• The infobox says the first castle was built around 1093, but the article text gives this only as the date the barons overran the region rather than specifically when the castle was constructed

  Done. Thanks for pointing this out, I've gone back through the sources and been more specific about the date range (c. 1093–5: Remfry identifies these dates, which Silvester acknowledges in the 2015 CPAT report covering the motte-and-bailey). I've clarified this in the article text, and added an additional citation. Jr8825 • Talk 22:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Is the church officially St Michael's Church or the Church of St Michael?

  The wording in the infobox matches the Listed Buildings record, but most sources (and the local archaeological trust) refer to it as St Michael's Church, which is used in the article prose. Jr8825 • Talk 22:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Links shouldn't be capitalized in External Links (and suggest doing a pass through the rest of the article for MOS issues)

  Done. Jr8825 • Talk 22:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Check that multi-page short cites consistently use pp.

  Done. Jr8825 • Talk 22:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• How are you ordering multiple sources with the same author?

  Done. Tweaked to consistently sort by ascending date. Jr8825 • Talk 22:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• What makes Radnorshire Society Transactions a high-quality reliable source? Areopagitica Press?

  The Radnorshire Society Transactions is a scholarly journal covering archaeological developments in the region. It's been around since 1931 and research published by it is cited in pretty much all academic coverage of Cefnllys, as well as site reports by the 3 Welsh heritage bodies (Cadw, the regional archaeological trust (CPAT) and RCAHMW). Despite Cefnllys' historical significance (attested by primary sources) the lack of visible remains means that it has had very little secondary literature dedicated to it specifically (it's mentioned extensively in monographs by R. R. Davies and J. Beverley Smith, but only in the context of wider historical events, as their works cover much broader topics such as the time period generally or Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. Because of this, the articles published in the Rad Soc Trans. are an indispensable source. I'd also add that A. E. Smith (whose 1972 work is the most heavily cited Rad Soc Trans. article here) was a prolific scholar within local British archaeology during the 70s-90s.

  I have don't know much about the Areopagitica Press, other than it was the publisher of the first edition of The Castle in England and Wales: An Interpretive History by D. J. Cathcart King, a well-known piece of scholarship in the field. It's currently reprinted by Routledge, and the publisher note describes it as "essential reading for all archaeologists and historians alike". The copy of the book in my university library is a first edition published by Areopagitica Press. Jr8825 • Talk 22:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  While I know essentially nothing about Areopagitica Press, The Castle in England and Wales: An Interpretive History is a widely cited source and as the 1988 review in The Antiquaries Journal shows was an authoritative source (while including some criticism which doesn't detract from its value as a source here). Richard Nevell (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• What kind of source is Remfry 2008? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  I discussed this source at the peer review, as it is indeed a difficult case. It's a self-published source, which I judged to be used in accordance with WP:SELFPUB. It's a research paper by Paul Remfry drawn from information published in his self-published 2008 book The Castles and History of Radnorshire, which is unfortunately out of print and expensive (as is often the problem with research on local history), so I wasn't able to get hold of it. Remfry is an established subject-matter expert on the Latin and Welsh primary sources of medieval Wales and castles in the Welsh Marches (his research and translations are routinely cited in published works on Welsh castles, such as Paul R. Davis' Forgotten Castles of Wales, new research papers on the topic (an example) and in the RCAHMW's online records). The source is used once, in order to acknowledge his most important new hypothesis, that the second castle's origins may be connected with Llywelyn ap Iorwerth. The reason that this hasn't been discussed in other, more recent research is simply because there isn't any! I considered it worth noting to give the reader a comprehensive overview of current scholarship on Cefnllys (as he's a leading subject expert and his claims are rigorously supported). The text of the short sentence in the article makes it very clear to the readers that this is new research offered by Remfry that goes against the traditional interpretation: "The historian Paul Remfry has speculated that the northern castle at Castle Bank may have been started in the period 1216–1234 under Llywelyn's direction,[31] although it is generally considered to be a Mortimer creation.[32]" (Where [31] is Remfry's 2008 paper and [32] is the 2006 RCAHMW survey which espouses the standard view of the site's origin (unclear, but probably a product of the Mortimers). Jr8825 • Talk 22:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  It's worth noting that Remfry's works via SCS Publishing are self-published. Remfry has published through peer-reviewed journals and established academic published, and his self-published works have been cited by other researchers as well (see his Wikidata-powered Scholia profile for some info, albeit incomplete). Richard Nevell (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing this out Richard, I'm increasingly thinking it may better to simply remove the coverage of this claim (and the source related to it) altogether. I explained the case for its inclusion above, which I still think is valid, but I'm not sure it meets the encyclopedic standard of no original research, given the lack of more recent commentary on the site. It's a tricky one and depends on whether Remfry's self-published sources can be considered reliable based on his reputation. If you or Nikkimaria think the value of its inclusion is outweighed by this concern, feel free to remove the sentence or let me know here and I'll do so myself. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 14:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  I did somewhat skirt around the key issue of whether this source is reliable! In general terms, he was discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard last year, though there wasn't a resolution as such. In short, it is tricky to say. I think your reasoning for including it as explained above holds up, and including an alternative view on the dating is a reasonable thing to do the issue is around original research. The claim itself, that the castle could be earlier, isn't outlandish so I'd be happy keeping it. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Richard Nevell: I've had a look through the section on Cefnllys in Paul Davis' book Forgotten Castles of Wales (2011). There are a couple of adjustments I'll be making tomorrow using this as a source, and Davis alludes to Remfry's theory in a footnote, "some authorities think that Mortimer rebuilt a pre-existing castle ... but later [primary source] references always refer to it as the ‘new castle’", so I'll add this as a ref to support the whole sentence (after "it is generally considered to be a Mortimer creation"). Jr8825 • Talk 04:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for taking the time to look through the article, Nikkimaria. I'd be grateful to hear your thoughts on my answers. Jr8825 • Talk 22:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Richard Nevell

Just leaving a quick comment so that I remember to take a proper look at this article. First impressions are good, and I'm pleased that the lack of archaeological excavations has been mentioned. That kind of detail is easy to skip over, so that's promising! Richard Nevell (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Really good article, sorry it’s taken me a while to get to it. As far as I’m concerned the article is good to go, and the comments below are a matter of fine tuning and the odd bit of food for thought with might not result in any changes to the article.

• How about shifting the plan to the 'description' section where the layout is discussed, and then moving the photo of the river to the 'location' section?

  Done - unfortunately the river photo doesn't fit next to the location section – this is where it was originally, and Buidhe rightly pointed out that it was causing MOS:SANDWICHING with the infobox – so I've switched the positions of the site plan and river. It's not ideal as the river image doesn't fit well contextually, but still an improvement as the plan sits next to the description section. Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Speaking of the plan, the it is nice and clear and the labelling works very well (I like the colour coding, it makes the different castles immediately stand out). I wonder if it would be worth moving the article to the middle and making it wider still so that the detail is even clearer, but I'm happy with how it is currently if it remains the same.

  I'm open to this - but it would take quite a bit of work since it uses {{overlay}}, so each label position would have to be manually adjusted. I'm content with the current layout as it doesn't break the flow of text and allows horizontal comparison with the text and vertical comparison with the aerial photo below, but if others feel strongly about this I'm happy to change it. Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Fair enough, happy leaving it as it is. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Castle Bank is often considered to be the site of an Iron Age hillfort, but there is no firm evidence to corroborate this: What do you think of adjusting the wording slightly so that instead of focusing on the circumstantial evidence it mentions that there’s disagreement?

  Do you have a suggestion for the wording? I quite like the current sentence as I think it does a good job of reflecting the RCAHMW report, which doesn't really make a judgement on likelihood. It quite systematically dismisses the evidence that has been taken to prove a hillfort's existence, rather than dismissing the possibility itself, which it clearly leaves an open question. I personally think Scourfield & Haslam's statement that Cefnllys is "no longer considered" to be a hillfort is an overly strong interpretation of the report ("no longer presumed" might have been a better way of putting it, and even then I think the possibility is considered by most writers to be significant), but it's the most recent scholarship on the issue and provides a good counterbalance to CPAT's enthusiasm – ultimately there's a lack of meaningful evidence upon which any disagreement can be based! Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Rachel Swallow’s paper Cheshire Castles of the Irish Sea Cultural Zone discusses the link between hillforts and castles. She doesn’t mention Cefnllys, and it sounds like the balance of opinion is currently that the castle wasn’t built on a hillfort, so I’ll leave it in your hands whether it would be useful to include Swallow.

  I'm going to exclude Swallow on the basis that Cefnllys is further south than the region she's discussing and doesn't clearly fall into the Irish zone of influence within early medieval Wales. Davies (in The Age of Conquest, p.9) says the "eastward-running valleys" in the region between the Severn and Wye "could serve as routes for [early] links with England" and suggests the Welsh of the region may have been more exposed to Saxon influence. I remember Cefnllys being specifically used as an example of a hillfort converted into a castle but I'm not sure where I read this (maybe Cathcart?) and I've returned most of the books I used to the library. Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Sounds entirely reasonable. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• When describing the Marcher army’s retreat in 1262, does Davis use the word ‘chivalrous’ to describe the act? If I have a copy, I have no idea where I’ve put it.

  Davis poses it as a question: "a chivalrous gesture, or a deliberate ploy to avoid staining his growing political status with unnecessary bloodshed?", while Smith states more confidently that Llywelyn was motivated by strategic considerations (desire to appear reasonable and come to terms, de-emphasising the fact that attacking Cefnllys was truce-breaking). I'm not dead set on the current wording, if you have a better alternative please let me know or go ahead and change it. Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  As long as he uses the term I'm happy keeping it. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Smith 1998 says the castle was ‘destroyed’ after Llywelyn took control of it. The event is described as ‘razing’ in the lead (which gives the impression of total destruction) and ‘dismantled’ (which implies being carefully taken apart piece by piece; that certainly could happen but the slighting of Deganwy Castle by Llywelyn the following year made frequent use of collapsing structures rather than dismantling) in the body of the article. I would suggest two options: sticking with ‘destroyed’ as it’s used by Smith or slighted based on Nevell, Richard (2017). The Archaeology of Castle Slighting in the Middle Ages (PhD). University of Exeter. p. 287. hdl:10871/33181.. There’s an obvious conflict of interest there in that I’ve written that source, but it’s the only explicit use of the term slighting to describe the event at Cefnllys which I’ve been able to find. If that makes you of the other reviewers at all uncomfortable, don’t hesitate to stick use another term.

  Done. I've replaced 'razed' with 'slighted', as I'm happy it's the more precise term and reflects the secondary sources' description of it being 'destroyed'. I don't think an additional ref is needed for this as it's a summation within the article lead, and I'm not sure it'd be suitable to cite your thesis per WP:SCHOLARSHIP – it's a shame your article in the Archaeological Journal doesn't mention Cefnllys by name! I looked back through the sources to find where I took 'dismantled' from, and, complicating things further, it was Brown's description of the initial damage to the castle when it was seized by the small Welsh band ("burned and dismantled"). I've replaced this with Smith's 'destroyed'. Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  That sounds good. I'd honestly forgotten I'd written anything about Cefnllys until I searched my hard drive for any mentions of it! A shame I didn't mention it in the article as it would have made a useful point. It's a fascinating site, and one with lots of potential. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Repairs of the castle and its hall were carried out from 1356 to 1357: Absolutely correct, but the narrative moves from 1294 to 1400 with only this sentence in between. A bit of extra text along the lines of ‘The 14th century was a relatively quiet period for the castle’, saying that the Mortimers remained in control, or a comment on the documentary sources might come in handy to ease the transition and signal to the reader that nothing has been missed.

  Done - added detail about the colourful Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March. Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• The church and surrounding earthworks: Maybe also use this caption to highlight the circle of yew trees which Bevan-Jones suggests could indicate the church had pre-Norman origins.

  Done. Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• When talking about the decline of the town, it might be worth adding that Creighton, Oliver; Higham, Robert (2005), Medieval Town Walls: an archaeology and social history of urban defence, Stroud: Tempus, p. 82 suggest the economic factors contributed.

  Done - I've simply added what you've told me here. I can get the book from the library myself if you feel there's something I've missed. Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is an excellent piece of work, it’s well researched and uses the best quality sources available, and the Gatehouse Gazetteer indicates that nothing significant has been missed. It also makes good, selective use of primary sources which I certainly appreciate. I also like that ambiguities or disagreements between the sources are explained to the readers. The illustrations are excellent, and well done on reaching out to people to release their images. This is a comprehensive and well written page, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading. Here’s hoping some archaeologists will help answer a few of the outstanding questions sooner rather than later. And finally, if you don’t mind me asking, what prompted you to write about Cefnllys in particular? It’s certainly an interesting site, and some of the best castles have almost nothing left above ground. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Richard Nevell, if you could glance through the changes I've made it'd be much appreciated. As I mentioned above, it was the sparseness of information in the existing stub, coupled with the fact that it's a distinctive site and a lost medieval town, that caught my imagination. I'm fascinated in all periods of history generally, but have a specific interest in castles and medieval Wales as I grew up not far from the impressive Chepstow Castle. Paul Davis' Castles of the Welsh Princes (which is a rather basic introduction to the subject – he's publishing a more comprehensive book next year which I'm looking forward to) introduced me to the more enigmatic, windswept ruins that usually go unnoticed. I'd like to improve articles on a number of similar sites in the future, especially those built by the native Welsh princes – if I can find the time to do so in between my studies (which aren't exactly related)! Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You've done the site justice! I hope you find time for more articles on Welsh castles. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• Link curtain wall, rampart

  Done. Jr8825 • Talk 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Nucleated settlement, jargony

  Done - rephrased sentence for clarity and accuracy to the source. 'Nucleated' is kept as it's the correct terminology for medieval settlements, but it's now wikilinked. Jr8825 • Talk 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Change the conversion of 10 hectares into acres, not meters

  Done - I wasn't sure about changing this as I thought it might better to have a metric conversion, but I went ahead anyway as I trust you have more expertise than me on this. Jr8825 • Talk 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Dinieithon was last documented in 1179,[29] by which time the castle had been destroyed, abandoned or possibly reused as a llys. This raises the question of how was it referred to in 1179?

  Slightly reworded to match the source on this, but I can't make it more much specific as I'm unable to find the primary source that mentions Dinieithon. The only published source I have for the date is a 1998 article in British Archaeology by Paul Remfry (who I was just discussing above with Richard Nevell). Remfry states "little is known of Dinieithon, near Llandrindod Wells, which is last mentioned (not as a castle) in 1179" but as it isn't an academic paper he doesn't specific his source for this. The date of 1179 as the last reference to Dinieithon turns up frequently in a Google search, but I've reviewed these links (all self-published accounts of Welsh castles or local history) and I strongly suspect they're basing this claim on Paul Remfry's 1996 book on Randorshire Castles, which I don't have (it isn't self-published like most of his works, but printed by a local publishing house, Logaston Press). I don't see a reason to doubt that Dinieithon was mentioned in passing as a place in Maelienydd in 1179, as the region shot to prominence in that year following the murder of the local Welsh ruler by the Mortimer lord so he could seize the area, causing a dispute with Henry II - the events and the region are described in a flurry of primary source coverage. I can find a long list of primary sources that cover this (sources section here, notes by Remfry in a Rad Soc Trans. article here), but I don't know which one is supposed to mention Dinieithon and it's not feasible for me to check them all, especially since the majority aren't online. Jr8825 • Talk 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, the Logaston Press has a good track record of publishing quality reference material. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• 1356–7, etc. Date ranges need to be given in full

  Done. Jr8825 • Talk 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Very nicely done, just a few nits that need to be dealt with. The photography is very helpful in providing the context for the site.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for your input Sturmvogel 66, please let me know if you have any further comments following my changes. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Support from me. I had my say at the PR after Jr8825 invited me to take a look. I think it's a really stellar article. I have not done spotchecks, and nor have I done any serious digging into other potential sources. But I am happy with the reliability of cited sources, prose/formatting, images, and coverage. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

Hi Jr8825, if I'm not mistaken is this your first time at FAC? If so, it is customary to get a spot-check of your sources to check for any issues with verifiability, plagiarism, etc. I have requested one at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Laser brain. Jr8825 • Talk 20:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Harrias

• Two quick comments: the 500 px width images are far too big for my screen, they need to be changed to a variable width to avoid this issue.

  I gave a long, internal sigh when I saw this comment, because you're completely right that the current size of the site plan stretches MOS:IMGSIZE beyond its recommendations. (see what I did there?) I've been scratching my head over this for some time and was hoping that the current compromise would be acceptable. The problem is that {{overlay}}, which is used to annotate the map, requires a fixed width (there's no workaround for this). My thought process was essentially "ignore all rules" here, because after experimenting with a variety of widths, I found that 400px (the recommended maximum, "[images] should usually be no more than 400px wide") came at a major cost to legibility (the labels are already close to each other as it is). I think 500px is the smallest the plan can go before becoming too unclear (the lack of excavation at the site means we're stuck with a complicated plan of earthworks, rather than nice excavated walls). Richard Nevell suggested the plan be centred and made wider (which I was reluctant to do because it's quite labour-intensive to reposition the {{overlay}} labels for a different width, and also because I was concerned it might worsen the situation for small screens. I used my browser's web page inspector to try and see how it would look on smartphones, but I'm not sure how accurate this tool is (I don't have a smartphone myself). The other images on the article all use variable widths (excluding those in the infobox, as permitted by MOS), although the image below the plan is also over the recommended maximum value with upright=2.25, in order to align visually with the 500px map plan. Reducing the size of this image wouldn't be a problem.

So, what to do about this? The first question I have is how awful is the plan on a small screen? Would it be acceptable to reduce the size of the other large picture, and retain the map plan's current size, even if it's sub-optimal? Failing this, would centring the image and getting rid of text wrap-around help in any way? Finally, I could reduce the map width to 400px, but my concern is that it will end up being illegible for everyone, regardless of screen-size! Please let me know your thoughts. Jr8825 • Talk 17:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, well now you've opened a can of worms. I have just opened this up on my smartphone. The image itself is not displayed in full; everything from roughly 11 right is cut off. The caption is similarly incomplete, for 8 and 9 all I can read is "Possible". For the computer monitor, then Richard Nevell's suggestion should suffice. For the phone, I can't see that it would make a difference. I can't say that I can readily think of a solution right now. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Harrias: oh dear. Are you able to check whether reducing the size to 400px fixes the problem on your smartphone (ignore the label positioning for now, I'd have to manually re-adjust these)? Jr8825 • Talk 18:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, my apologies. It turns out that that whole box gains a horizontal scroll bar that I hadn't noticed on my phone, so at either width it isn't ideal, but isn't deal-breaking either. So let's get back to the browser issue. On my laptop monitor it is ugly, cramping the text into a narrow band, but again, it isn't a complete deal breaker. I've played around with centring it, and to be honest, I can't find an option that looks great. Maybe drop the "aerial overview" image to a more normal size, and we'll just have to live with the overlay map being a bit big, unless anyone else has a workable suggestion? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense, I think I recall seeing a scroll bar in previews. I've reduced the aerial overview image to thumbnail size (and shortened its caption to fit this change), and am more than happy to revisit the map if anyone can think of a better alternative to the status quo. Thanks for your input. Jr8825 • Talk 19:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Use the {{lang}} rather than '' to create italics for foreign language terms, per MOS:LANG. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  Done. Jr8825 • Talk 17:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Harrias. I'm not certain what the best step to take is regarding the map's size, and would be grateful to hear your take on my thought process. Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 17:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Harrias, have your concerns been satisfactorily addressed? Do you have any others? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my concerns have been addressed. I'm not providing a full review, so I won't formally support. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

I’ve never heard of this site, so an interesting read. Most of the following are minor points, which are more suggestions than anything else

• High Middle Ages. —perhaps give date range in text

  Hmmm. I'm not sure about this because the date range of Cefnllys' significance isn't a particularly clear-cut thing. Its importance was probably greatest in the period before and during the first stone castle (late 12th – mid-13th century, aligning with the late High Middle Ages) but it remained an important location well into the late medieval period, although by that time possibly more because the Moritmers already had a powerful castle there. I think a broad, loose term fits better here – what are your thoughts on this? Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• ensuing peace treaty. —seems odd to have to follow a link to find its name

  Done – reworded. Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• fealty —perhaps not a common word now, link?

  Done. Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• The hill is open access land—perhap “now”?

  Done. Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• pre-Roman—perhaps link Roman Britain

  Done. Pre-Roman Britian essentially equates to the British Iron Age (which is already linked), but I guess more wikilinks can't hurt. Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• by later agricultural use and quarrying—is this real quarrying, or removing all the stonework as at Melbourne Castle?

  While I'm sure the stonework was also pillaged, there was extensive quarrying on the hilltop/hillside, i.e. excavating material for building, including in areas right alongside the castle sites. Do you think this needs to be explained more explicitly? Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Kastell... Kaer— no action needed, just struck me that it uses a letter no longer extant in modern Welsh

  I presume this is an attempt to retain Glyn Cothi's Middle Welsh. The translation is lifted from a 1936 journal article, so maybe a more recent translation would simply opt for 'C'? I'm afraid I'm not very knowledgeable about this so I've just stuck with the translation I have. Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• toll bridge—link “toll” or toll bridge

  Done. Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• An attempt to emanate royally-sponsored English colonisation at Flint—not sure of “emanate” as the right verb here

  Done – reworded. Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Having, many years ago, had the privilege of handling the White Book of Rhydderch I was interested to see the Red Book of Hergest in the title of one of the paid-for sources. Any link to the Mabinogion in the early traditions?

  They're fascinating texts, and yes, the Red Book of Hergest does contain a large collection of prose and poetry of the Mabinogion. For this article, I was mostly focusing on the translation of the Brut y Tywysogion it contains, and contrasting this with the more complete version found in the Peniarth Manuscripts (mostly because my university library has a better translation of the Hergest edition). The Bruts was more of a current-affairs chronicle – the newspaper of its time, perhaps – detailing the sorry tales of incessant princely squabbling, murders and conquest, in which Cefnllys sometimes featured. Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• A good read, I look forward to supporting shortly Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for your suggestions, Jimfbleak. You can see my adjustments here, please let me know if you have any follow-up comments. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

All your responses look good, I only asked the quarrying bit because often it refers to removing built stone rather than real digging. Changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Spot-check of sources by and Support from KJP1

cc. Laser brain - I think this is a wonderful article; very well written, beautifully illustrated and, if I may say so, a very impressive first-time FAC. I'd be pleased to do the spot-check of sources needed. I don't have all the books but I do have some and these, combined with those available online, should suffice. I've taken the liberty of removing the spot-check request at the FAC page. My only caveat is that it may take me through next week as work is hellish at present. Hope that's ok. KJP1 (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Browne & Pearson - Cites 1/6/9/14/15/20/34/48/63/65 - all good.

Silvester - Cites 3/26 - all good.

Breeze - Cite 4 - good.

Brown - Cites 8/11/16/39/47/62 - one, super picky point - I think the support for Cite 62 is on page 14, rather than pages 14 and 15.

Tweaked. Jr8825 • Talk 07:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Cadw SM Report - Cite 13 - good.

Soulsby - Cites 17/71/78 - all good.

Trevor - Cite 18 - minor typo, the sfn in the text should read Trevor|1986, not 1996.

Fixed. Jr8825 • Talk 07:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Martin & Silvester - Cites 19/23 - all good.

Scourfield & Haslam - Cite 24 - again, being super-picky, the cited quote is wholly on p.298, rather than 298-299.

Tweaked. Jr8825 • Talk 08:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Jones - Cite 25 - good, and 68.

Reid - Cite 27 - good.

Dugdale- Cites 29/38 - should we note that the Source is in Latin? I've seen other FAs that do make a note in the bibliography when the source language isn't English, but I don't know whether this is a requirement?

Done - yep, I must've overlooked this since I do it for another source. Jr8825 • Talk 08:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Remfry - Cites 30/31/33 - sourcing fine. A small query. I'm guessing "Dynyetha" and "Dinieithon" are one and the same? The switch in spelling threw me a little. Would it help readers for them to be consistent?

Er... well Remfry treats them as the same, but ultimately this is a presumption as the different spellings go back to the manuscripts. All the historians may link them, but I've seen Dynyetha gazetted separately with the entry saying see Dinieithon, so it's more technically accurate to leave the two spellings. If this is unclear then perhaps I should add a footnote? (Although I'm not sure what it would say). Jr8825 • Talk 08:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

No, nor am I. Stet.

Breverton - Cites 43/57 - all good.

Lloyd - Cite 45 - good.

Brut y Tywysogion - should this be to the Brut y Tywysogion or to T. Jones as editor? Same for Cites 37/40, and similar query for Cite 41.

I'd prefer to keep the manuscript names, as it's useful for the reader to be able to tell from a glance at the footnote that these particular citations are primary sources. I'm used to seeing manuscript names (or abbreviations) in the footnotes of monographs on medieval Wales, which is why I did this myself. Is this acceptable on Wikipedia? I'd presume so... Jr8825 • Talk 22:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I don’t know of anything that prohibits it and, more importantly, Nikkimaria is content.

Cole (1964) - Cite 61 - I'm not actually seeing a reference to rebuilding on p.31, but there is later, e.g. p.33. Should Cite 61 read pp=31-39? Cite 75 - good.

Done. Jr8825 • Talk 22:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Owen - Cite 69 - v. minor, and probably beyond your control, but the Source is on its side. Makes viewing rather challenging!

Unfortunately this is out of my hands. Since it's a relatively new article (2011) it's only available via that journal's website. In 6 years it'll be transferred to the National Library of Wales' online journals (they go up after 15 years), although I'd prefer not to wait that long! Most browsers should have an option to rotate within their built-in PDF viewers, although it isn't always intuitive where to find this. Alternatively, downloading the PDF will allow the reader to open it with Adobe Reader or equivalents, and then rotate it. Jr8825 • Talk 22:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Cole (1946) - Cite 72 - good.

Cadw Listed Building report - Cite 79 - good.

That's it from me. The Sources check out very well, and I'm pleased to sign off on that. Thanks for your very prompt responses and apologies for taking a while to conclude. I shall also be pleased to Support when you've had a chance to consider the last few above. It is a beautiful article and, only slightly premature, congratulations on your first FA. KJP1 (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough review and kind words, I hope I've addressed everything. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 22:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

A very interesting article. It's well-written and the unknowns are very well explained. Just a couple of minor points I picked up:

• An IPA or layman-readable pronunciation guide would be helpful.

  I've tweaked the IPA template to make things a bit more readable. Do you think it can be further improved, and how? The problem with using {{IPA-en}} is that Cefnllys is a Welsh rather than English word. Jr8825 • Talk 14:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  So the pronunciation is roughly kev-un-lis? Can we add a summary like that to the article for readers who struggle with IPA? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  Something like kev-un-hlees is closer, but I'm not sure how to do an accurate respelling. There's no English equivalent for the Welsh 'll' sound so 'hl' is only a poor approximation, and kevn is monosyllabic, so 'un' isn't really right. I've just had a look at MOS:RESPELL and I don't think a respelling is appropriate here – while it might have had a common English pronunciation during its lifespan (it was an English castle), perhaps close to the archaic 'Keventhles', I'm doubtful a distinct English pronunciation can be known for certain. The word is distinctly Welsh. Jr8825 • Talk 18:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not going to die in a ditch over it or anything, but I think the pronunciation is difficult for people not familiar with Welsh names (I'm an Englishman and struggled so I'm not sure how, say, an American or an Indian reader would find it). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  I understand where you're coming from (I was pronouncing Cefnllys incorrectly for the first month of writing this!) and am not against your suggestion. The situation doesn't fit the MOS respell guidance, and I'm just unsure it's worth IAR for this. Jr8825 • Talk 07:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• Is it worth explaining what open access land is for unfamiliar readers? And is that the official term or is it a neologism?

  It's an official term, and I've found a better wikilink for it (a section on right to roam in the UK, rather than the primary legislation). If possible, I think it's better to avoid an explanation in the article since it's not directly relevant to the castle and seems a relatively self-explanatory term. It's a shame we don't have a specific article on open access land I can point to – do you think this is enough? Jr8825 • Talk 14:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Martin & Silvester (2011) [...] while Scourfield & Haslam (2013) We should give these authors' full names and areas of expertise on first mention.

  Done. Jr8825 • Talk 14:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• "three Farm Houses and one small Cottage" that quote needs attributing per MOS:QUOTE, or you could dispense with the quote marks and just give the information in Wikipedia's voice.

  Done – source is the 1831 census. Jr8825 • Talk 14:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions HJ Mitchell, please let me know what you think of my responses. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 14:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• 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. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

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