Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I've copied and pasted a comment from the talk page, it dates from 2010, however all of the points made are valid and unchanged apart from an attempt by me to remedy the situation. My own research indicates there is likely original research in this article, and even if it doesn't have any OR this is dreadfully poorly written and missing information. The last GAR was in 2009. Szzuk (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know I should just walk away from this train wreck but sometimes my professional and academic hubris gets the better of me. Particularly as a San Diego resident has the power to think this is a "good article"? Good grief, they don't even understand basic historical practice. It's akin to a plumber checking the work of a heart surgeon. Firstly:

1. "Although there is no surviving evidence, it is likely that Halton Hill was a settlement in prehistoric times." Really? If there is no archaeological evidence, then the conclusion drawn from the proposition is without any merit. As this is based on secondary or even third party sources, where is the material on finds from the site? The claim is baseless without a shred of evidence!
2. "Following the Norman conquest, the Barony of Halton was established by Hugh Lupus, Earl of Chester. The first baron to be appointed was Nigel of Cotentin and it is almost certain that he would have built a motte and bailey castle on the site, constructing it from wood" Really? Is there any chance that it might have been a ring work? Again an unintentional but common misconception - the Normans built a variety of fortifications mostly commonly ring works or motte and baileys. They even built stone castles too. See Cheptow.
3. "although the excavations in 1986–87 showed no evidence of a motte and bailey structure or of a timber tower or palisade." I rest my case. Contradictory supposition without an explanation as to why a motte and bailey is preferred.
4. "It is most probable that during the 12th century the wooden structure was replaced by a castle built from the local sandstone although no documentary evidence of this remains." So there is no evidence that the castle was rebuilt in stone after the 11th century. It therefore might have been begun in stone because it stands on an ideal building material = a rocky sandstone promontory. As the Normans were already using sandstone building Chester Cathedral, why not here?
5. "Details of the building works are obscure" - explain? Does that means there are records or none at all? "but it has been suggested - by whom? that John of Gaunt, the 14th baron, made alterations to the castle but this again has not been confirmed by documentary evidence." So again a throwaway statement which is not supported by any presentable evidence.

This article is laudable. It's been put together using Original Research from third-party publications due to Wikipedia's own requirement to have sources. But this overlooks the good academic practice of first reading primary documents to establish their veracity and testing that with archaeological data/research obtained from the test site. Academically this article contains no analysis and methodology to check any of the claims cited by the reference that it uses. The narrative is therefore without basis, and yet, Wikipedia classes this as a great article. Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.111.16 (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delisted. No action has occurred. Szzuk (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]