Talk:Hull Castle

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Will review. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Well-written as always, a few comments: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

16th century

• Can Channel be wikilinked?
• Duplicate links (linked twice): blockhouse, the Crown
• Sir Richard Long and Michael Stanhope No need to call them by their full names, you introduced them in the previous section.

The rest of the article reds quite well. Excellent prose, complying with the MOS. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Channel and dup links fixed. Full names are being used when they appear in a new section.

• Um, in most other articles I have seen editors mentioning people only once by their full names (the first mention) and then consistently use their surnames. Moreover, here you mention them in the section immediately after the one where they were first named, so it can look redundant. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think it works okay, and it complies with the MOS. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, not a major issue to halt promotion. Good job, promoted. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Author/Editor formatting

Is there any reason for the different formatting of authors/editors? The References section uses first/last format while the Bibliography section uses last/first formatting. I would have expected both to use the same format. Keith D (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The on-line references are just done in a different sequence I think. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)