Talk:Coldrum Long Barrow/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) 14:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll be your reviewer today. Taking one last pass through the text and I'll get comments going. I'm happy to say that it's in excellent shape already, and I fully expect promotion at the end of the review process. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

1. A Good Article is well-written.

• "Constructed circa 4000 BCE, during Britain's Early Neolithic period, today it survives only in a ruined state although is open to visitors all year round." -Implies a contrast between being a ruin and being open to visitors throughout the year, but that doesn't really logically follow. My suggestion here is to actually move the visitation bit toward the end of the lead as part of a change to where that appears in the body (see below).
  • Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Since the Early Neolithic, the long barrow has fallen into a state of dilapidation, with suggestions being made that it was intentionally demolished by Christian zealots in the late 13th or early 14th century CE." -The suggestions didn't cause the dilapidation (and "suggestions being made") is weak wording.
  • I've changed it to "After the Early Neolithic, the long barrow fell into a state of ruined dilapidation, perhaps being largely demolished by Christian zealots in the late 13th or early 14th century CE." Does this work ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• In the Name and Location section, the second paragraph discusses what's basically tourism information concerning its management by the National Trust. Perhaps this entire paragraph would be better moved to the end of the article, in the "Management by The National Trust" subsection (and the lead adjusted accordingly, as noted above)?
  • I've moved the paragraph to the end, as you suggest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• "On their website, the Trust advises the visitor to look out for what they consider to be "Stunning views from the top of the barrow"." -Since we're directly quoting, we know that this phrase is in their voice, not Wikipedia's, so the "what they consider" phrasing is probably redundant. Perhaps simply: On their website, the Trust advises visitors to look for "stunning views from the top of the barrow".
  • Good call; I've changed it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Britain was largely forested in this period, although did witness some land clearance." -This may be a British English issue, in which case, ignore my American ear, but I might use "experience" in place of "witness" here.
  • I'd actually say that "witness" works better than "experience" here, but again that might be a British English versus American English issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Link White Horse Stone.
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• The paragraph in the "tomb building tradition" subsection that begins "In Britain..." has a great deal of "many archaeologists" / "others" wording. Because these claims are cited but simply unclear attributions in the prose, this is probably okay to slide by at the GA level, but there's no reason this article shouldn't aim for the FA criteria.
  • I'll bear that in mind. As you note, however, I am basing the prose upon what it says in the original texts. They don't specify particular archaeologists by name, but I could probably find that out with further research. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Ah, well, if that's what the sources actually say on the issue, then just ignore me! (And expect to point that out at FAC, if you head there at some point...). That's what I get for not peeking at the source material there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Links in the lead don't prejudice links in the body (as far as link duplication goes), and it might be nice to link the other megaliths at their first appearance in the Midway Megaliths section.
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Link lynchet (and I'm not sure I've ever heard "lynchet scarp"; is that what the source says?).
  • I have added the link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Link portal stone to megalithic architectural elements#Portal stones, mostly in the hope that target will be expanded eventually.
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Excavations conducted in the early 20th century have led to the methodical discovery and removal of what was believed to be the remains of twenty-two human individuals, which were the result of a study published in 1913 by Sir Arthur Keith, the Conservator of the museum at the Royal College of Surgeons, which was largely concerned with discerning racial characteristics of the bodies." -This sentence is long, unwieldy, and I think simply tries to convey too much information between full stops. In particular, the clause order makes it sound like the remains were the result of the 1913 study.
  • Good point, I have carved the prose up into smaller, more succinct sentences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Disputing earlier conclusions, it stated that the minimum number of individuals being seventeen." -Probably should be "was seventeen".
  • Good idea, corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• In the radiocarbon dating section, I'm not familiar with the "cal" in the dates. Is "3670–560" meant to be 3670–3560?
  • Yes, I have corrected the date in the prose. "Cal" is the shorthand used when referring to radiocarbon dates, and means "calibrated". I have indicated this in the prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• "The method of systematic destruction became evident at Chestnuts Long Barrow..." -Since there's been no prior discussion of systematic destruction, having this start with "the method" is odd. What method? Probably the best choice here is to just tighten up the sentence.
  • I've reworded this section to the following: "Excavation of Chestnuts Long Barrow revealed that it had been systematically destroyed in one event, and Ashbee suggested that the same may have happened to the Coldrum Stones. He believed that the kerb-stones around the barrow were toppled, laid prostrate in the surrounding ditch, and then buried during the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century, by Christians seeking to obliterate non-Christian monuments." Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• The link to British Isles in the Medway Megaliths section is a duplicate link. You actually have quite a few duplicate links from there through the end of the article. Paul Ashbee is linked something like four times.
  • Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Evans also recorded that there was a folk belief in the area that applied to all of the Medway Megaliths and which had been widespread "Up to the last generation"..." -No need to capitalize "Up" (even if it was in the original) when using a direct quote inline in this manner.
  • Fair enough. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• You redlink countless stones in the lead, but not when you discuss it in the body. If you think this is a realistic candidate for expansion, might as well.
  • I've redlinked it later in the article too. I definitely think that this folk motif is worthy of its own Wikipedia article, and might create it myself in the near future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I've gone ahead and created a countless stones page now, so that sorts that problem out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

2. A Good Article is verifiable with no original research.

• I have nothing bad to say about your sourcing, which is thorough and based on sources of ideal quality. FAC will want you to dig up OCLC numbers for book references that do not have assigned ISBNs. That's certainly not an issue for GA.

6. A Good Article is illustrated, if possible, with images.

• License tagging and all that fun stuff looks good.
• The caption in the infobox, although long, isn't a complete sentence, so shouldn't end with a period. It also doesn't need the comma following "slope".
  • Done and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• The caption for the area map should either have "river" non-capitalized or specifically name the River Medway.
  • Agreed; I've gone with "River Medway" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• The excarnation image caption is a complete sentence, and so does need a period.
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• The Morris Men caption needs one, too.
  • Also done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Very little of this is critical, nor should it be particularly difficult to adjust. Tagging the article on hold so that you can make some adjustments, but this is very close to earning its GA token. It probably would benefit from an overall copy-edit before taking it to FAC (which isn't my forte, despite having tried to single out some particularly visible wording problems), but I see no reason why this couldn't aim for the gold star as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that I have responded to all the comments, Squeamish Ossifrage. If you do have any further comments or responses then please let me know. Otherwise, thank you so much for taking the time to review this article, and I hope that you found it an interesting and/or enjoyable read! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

My only remaining response is to congratulate you on your Good Article! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated Squeamish Ossifrage, thank you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.