This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Castles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Castles in Scotland 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.Scottish CastlesWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish CastlesTemplate:WikiProject Scottish CastlesScottish Castle 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
There seems to be as much information about the Douglas family as about the castle in the article. Personally I'd like to see more about how the sieges went, and it seems there would be room for more about the architecture, and while a date of construction is implied it isn't stated right out. Not to be a pain in the neck or anything, I just thought I'd mention it in case someone gets inspired.
Candle-ends01:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Separating the design out a bit would also interest me. It appears this castle has rather large walls and towers involved so any information about the configuration and scale would be helpful. Listing all that apart from the historical context would be good, even if it is only a few sentences. --
M0llusk00:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm creating and adding to loads on on East Lothian, and specifically the North Berwick area at the moment, as you can see from my
extremely vain contributions page. I've done lots on Seacliff, Auldhame and Scoughall today so I'll probably get around to editing this at some point. But don't let that stop anyone else from getting stuck in...
Deizio01:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I'd just like to point out that, a few years ago, there was a pretty major restoration on the gatehouse, that might be worth a mention. As you can see in some of the photos, the grey stone gatehouse front (made of softer stone to make it more resistent to artillery) had worn badly away; all this stone has now been replaced, as you can see in more recent photos of the castle.
Fionnlaoch (
talk)
16:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes you are right. It seems to have been a disturbingly severe intervention, destructive to the monument's historical integrity, and unnecessary for genuine conservation or consolidation reasons given that none of the front façade of the gateway was at risk of collapse.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk)
23:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Unreferenced details
I removed the following sections, as, despite extensive research. I have been unable to locate references for them:
The younger Lauder fought on the side of Queen Mary at the
Battle of Langside in 1568, and was replaced by Gavin Hume of Shiells, a younger son of Alexander Hume of
Polwarth (d. 1532).
The answers may lie in the following books, listed in the reference section but which I am unable to access:
Historic Manuscripts Commission - MSS of Colonel David Milne-Home of Wedderburn Castle, London, 1902, p.257.
Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland, Vol. XI, 1559 - 1566, Edinburgh, 1916, p.lxxi.
Not in HMC, Wedderburn Castle, the mentions of Tantallon indexed are of charters signed there. These sound like references collected in "The Grange of St. Giles (1898), a book focusing on the Dick-Lauder family.
Unoquha (
talk)
10:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Good throughout (although in general you use too many commas for my liking) - and here are a few specific quibbles.
"There are several small chambers within the walls, and stairs, with arched ceilings, accessing the parapet walk." The are lots of commas here that don't help me. I think you mean:
"There are several small chambers within the walls, and stairs with arched ceilings accessing the parapet walk." rather than
"There are several small chambers within the walls and stairs, with arched ceilings accessing the parapet walk." or even
There are several small chambers within the walls, and stairs with arched ceilings, accessing the parapet walk.
Is there a reason why "curtain wall" is in quotes in the history section? - we already know what you mean.
"The Yester Writs (no.798) record an Andrew..." I would have thought the number should be part of the citation, not the text. See also below.
All fair enough and dealt with.
MoS compliance:
Links to Bailey & Marmion are dabs.
Lead - this should have a brief mention of the ghostly apparition.
Even though its guff? Oh well OK then...
Well of course its guff, but if its got its own section it should really be alluded to. There is an alternative.....
I know, but its there now...
Factual accuracy:
"Tantallon is of a singular construction within Scotland, due to its location on a promontory." It may well be of a singular construction, but this surely cannot be because of the location alone. Dunottar? Dunstaffnage?
Hmm, fair point, will rephrase.
Have reworded this
References to sources:
References 2 & 10 have spaces before the page number, which are inconsistent with the remainder.
Ref 10 is doubly inconsistent- the publication details should be added to the bibliography. Possibly also ref 27, although that's optional.
Ref 22 should end in a period
Bibliography
Historic Manuscripts Commission surely doesn't need a page number. Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland likewise (I note the talk page history).
Lindsay (1986) should have a place of publication, and ideally an ISBN.
Maxwell (1902) - assuming Freemantle is the publisher, London is placed inconsistently. Ditto for Embra in MacGibbon (1887).
McKean (2004) through to Tabraham (1997) all lack a place of publication. All converted to {{cite book}} and filled out
Mackay, Elspeth is a dead link. Updated
Image copyright:
There is a query of some kind re File:George Monck 1st Duke of Albemarle Studio of Lely.jpg. I will have to check this out.
Everything uploaded from the NPG has this tag, but the images are still there, so I don't know what their status is. There are
other pictures of Monck if its a problem.
Whilst I don't believe it is necessary for this GA candidature I recommend using {{Convert}} for metric/imperial translations. For example {{convert|60|by|120|m|ft}} produces "60 by 120 metres (200 by 390 ft)" without the need to add brackets etc., etc.
BenMacDui19:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)reply