Talk:Hampton Down Stone Circle

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hampton Down Stone Circle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 02:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review, though it will probably be in bits! Josh Milburn (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• File:Hampton Down Stone Circle 1908.jpg is definitely PD in the US, and your explanation for PD status in the UK is compelling, so it should not use {{Non-free use rationale}}. I've updated the image page; feel free to use it anywhere!
  • That looks good, thank you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• You have one "Wainwright 1968" in a footnote; is this a typing error, or have you forgotten to add a source to the bibliography?
  • It is an error, which I have now corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• "open down-land ridge" This is a bit jargon-y for the lead. (And, indeed, the body; could these terms be explained?)
  • I've added links to downland and ridge; do you think that these do the trick? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, happy enough. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• "the stones in the circle were disturbed by agricultural operation" This seems elliptical; are you missing a word?
  • No, as I can see it all the words are there, but I can see that the wording is not particularly crystal clear. Would a change from "agricultural operation" to "agricultural activity" do the trick here, in your opinion? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I think so; I've made the change. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Burl suggested that the Hampton Down Stone Circle may never have been part of the prehistoric stone circle tradition, but that the stones were actually once the kerbstones of a round barrow" This belongs in the lead- that it may not have been a stone circle at all is important.
  • I was humming and harring over this point when putting the article together. I decided against it, but if you think it important then I am more than happy to add a brief sentence mentioning this argument in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I've rephrased the addition; given that there's a lot of talk about it as a stone circle, I think a little more context was required. Are you happy with this? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Looks good Josh, thank you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• You provide a lot of imperial measurements without metric conversions. You can use {{convert}} without running foul of the original research policy, but beware of false precision (e.g., "about 200 feet" is not "about 60.96 metres", it's "about 60 metres").
  • I think that all of the imperial measurements without metric conversions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I don't follow. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
      • From the looks of things, I don't follow either! It seems that I had absent-mindedly not finished my sentence for some reason. It should read "I think that all of the imperial measurements without metric conversions have now had the latter appended to them". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• "No finds were found during the excavation" How about "The excavation yielded no finds"? And, presumably, a find is a concrete item that could be put in a museum or something- the ditches and track do not constitute "finds", correct?
  • I'll make that change. I have looked to see if we have an article along the lines of 'finds (archaeology)' but unfortunately it does not appear that we have one. The nearest that we have is 'artefact (archaeology)' although in archaeological jargon, "finds" is a bit more expansive than "artefacts", covering things like charred seeds and other environmental data that would not be classed as "artefacts". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes; I thought as much. Sometimes we have glossaries, though it seems that no one has created a glossary of archaeology. You could create a short article on finds, but I don't think it's necessary for this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• "no means of securely dating the construction of the site" Reliably?
  • That's a good substitution. I'll make the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• "stratigraphy" Undefined jargon
  • I think it best if I simply add a link to Stratigraphy (archaeology) here. I appreciate that this means that there is no actual explanation of this term in this article, but I feel that to begin adding such an explanation would just detract from the general thrust of the prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's a good solution. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• "According to Burl, "its history illuminates the perils of superficial fieldwork"." The it is ambiguous.
  • I've made some alterations to this sentence in order to make things clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• "As of 2003, it was the only one of the Dorset circles to have seen excavation" And again.
  • Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• "The plan of the Hampton Down Stone Circle." Would "A plan" not be more accurate? I defer to you.
  • Sounds good. I'll make the switch. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• It's scheduled; this should be mentioned. There will be a way to get a full list from Historic England which may be a better source, but I don't know what it is.
  • I've added some information, and used this website, which I think might be considered slightly better. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• File:Hampton Down stone circle - geograph.org.uk - 242207.jpg is a free image of it today.
  • Well done on finding this; I had taken a look but had not been able to find any such image on Wikipedia. It's not the clearest of images, but it will certainly do until something else comes along. I'll stick it into the infobox. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Is this on the Isle of Purbeck? That's what the infobox says.
  • Oops, another error. I must have copied this infobox from that on the Rempstone Stone Circle page. I have removed this erroneous information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• We have articles on Alexander Thom, Geoffrey Wainwright and Ronald Hutton; perhaps worth including? Also, why do you link Burl in the references but no one else? Burl is linked in the main article.
  • It would certainly be a good idea to ensure some standardisation here. I'll add the link to Wainwright into the article (I wasn't aware that we had an article on him) and remove the Burl links from the references. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Overall, very strong! Josh Milburn (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks for providing the review, Josh. I've responded to every query, although there may be a few you might want to counter-respond to. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I've offered some replies. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking the time to do this, Josh. I think that I've dealt with everything now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
    • There are still a few imperial measurements without any conversion, but I'll leave that to you. The article's looking really great; I think it's my favourite of your stone circle articles so far. Happy to promote now. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Oh, are there? I'll take another look. Many thanks Josh, and I'm glad that you found it your favourite. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)