Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fir Clump Stone Circle/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [1].

Fir Clump Stone Circle

edit
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a stone circle in Wiltshire (where Avebury and Stonehenge are also found) that was unfortunately completely destroyed. Little is known of the circle, so it's a fairly short article. It gained GA status last year and is now ready for FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass
Image review
Other comments
  • It seems a bit unbalanced when the "context" section makes up the majority of the non-lede article text. Maybe you could cite Richard Reiss directly to expand that part of the article? buidhe 05:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Buidhe and thanks for taking the time to read this article. Your suggestion for a drawing of the circle is an excellent one and is something that I'm working on. I'll ping you when I've made it. I'll use the David Field and Dave McOmish book you link to in order to expand the latter part of the article a little bit but unfortunately it seems that Reiss' original report was never published and so is just sitting in an archive somewhere. Obviously, we can't use unpublished sources as that would constitute OR. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now added a diagram of the circle, as you suggested. Thanks again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

edit

Looking now...

  • ...who measured the size of the monument and recorded its existence. - odd order, and "recorded its existence" seems a bit waffly. How about just "described and measured it"
  • ...All of the other examples are ruined, - err, Avebury and Stonehenge aren't exactly not ruined.....
  • Oh, I would have to disagree. Both Stonehenge and Avebury seem to have stones missing, other stones are leaning at angles, and at least half the stones that are there are being propped up by concrete bases. Neither of those monuments are in states anything like how they would have appeared in the Bronze Age. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • An adjective/descriptor would be good before Richard Reiss allowing reader to understand who/what he is.

The article ends rather abruptly - I was expecting some more discussion of Reiss' discovery - what was there - did he have to dig - what is there now. Not even a marker by the side of the M4? Is it directly under the M4? Do we have any sort of diagram? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, Cas. Apologies for the delay in responding; I'm not spending as much time on Wikipedia these days as I used to. There is no marker by the side of the M4 and to be honest I am not precisely sure exactly where in relation to the motorway the circle was. Going through Reiss' original (unpublished) reports (which I presume are sitting in an archive somewhere) might reveal said information, but that would definitely be entering the realms of original research. Regarding a diagram, that's a point that others have also raised here; it's something that I'm working on, as it's a good idea. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an embellishment of all of Reiss' investigations that can be added, it'd be good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added the diagram of the circle, as you suggested. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we've scraped everything we can from what sources are out there, so I reckon if that is the case then it can't be made any better on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

edit

Just an initial placeholder comment for now; did you manage to get hold of a copy of The Making of Prehistoric Wiltshire? From the Google Book preview, this seems to contain both a diagram and a comparison to another circle built in a similar style. These would both be useful additions to the article, I think. I know it's not from an academic press, but the authors definitely seem to be reputable, so it passes the RS bar. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Burl p. 413: Though I'm struggling with his notation, it looks like he's citing Reiss's private papers and two other sources. Now, we can't cite private papers here (unless they're somehow made public) but have you bee able to dig up the other sources? They're Nat Mons Record (whatever that means) and Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine. They may contain information omitted, but, at the very least, they'd be good to add to the bibliography. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments, Josh, and my apologies for the delay in responding to you. I'm not spending as much time on Wikipedia these days as I once did (probably for the best, as it does get addictive). Regarding The Making of Prehistoric Wiltshire, I had forgotten about it since the GAN but I'll be consulting a copy in the next few days; I'll certainly use the diagram in there as the basis for my own, which I'll add into the article. As for the Nat Mons Record, that'll be the National Monuments Record, which should be available online I think; indeed it's probably going to be largely the same as the HER record already in the External Links (although the latter will have been updated). You're also right that Burl cites an old copy of WAM on page 413 - that's intriguing, and I'll take a look and get back to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So the 1894 piece in WAM is a short article by A. D. Passmore primarily discussing the Day House Lane Stone Circle but also mentioning the Broome Stone Circle. On the final page Passmore also mentions "a number of sarsens" at a Hodson. This is almost certainly the same phenomenon as the Fir Clump stone circle so I will incorporate it into the article. Thanks for spotting the reference! Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing things somewhat is that in his notebooks, which Burl prints in his 2004 article, Passmore seems to discuss the Fir Clump stone circle and the Hodson circle separately (here). Things get confusing. It seems possible that at the time of his 2000 book, Burl listed Passmore's 1894 reference to a Hodson circle as a reference to the Fir Clump circle, but that on discovering Passmore's later notebooks he realised that they were distinct. I'll try and convey some of this confusion in the article itself, sources permitting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This all sounds great. Ping me when the changes are made and I will take another look. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: Hi Josh; I've added both the diagram and some additional information taken from Field and McOmish. Do let me know if you have any other recommendations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just so I'm clear: Are we still waiting on some possible sources to talk about Passmore's maybe-this-maybe-another observations, or is that not going to be possible based on the sources that exist? I just feel that for a very minor circle like this - I can see people questioning its notability! - we should include everything there is to say. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: To be honest, I think the article now says everything that can be said on this issue. Hopefully archaeologists of the future will delve deeper into the circle (perhaps discussing its landscape context or something like that) which in turn will allow us to expand the article. At present, however, I think we have exhausted the sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great; I see the issue has been explained in the paragraph beginning "In an 1894 article in". I'll aim to have a close look at the article soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved the pictures around a little; please check you're happy with this.
  • Could I recommend that you name/link all of these seven circles near Swindon?
  • I won't mention this again (promise!) but I think the comparison to Winterbourne Bassett Stone Circle in Field and McOmish is worth noting. I just think it's nice to tie this in with other related monuments.
  • A fair point - I'll add it in! 16:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Other than that, I think I'm happy to support. I can't see there being anything else to say about this circle, and I think stone circles deeply worthy topics for FAs, even if - especially if? - they are gone. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Coordinators: Please note that I was the GA reviewer of this article, and I am taking part in the WikiCup. I will probably be claiming this review in the competition. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Usernameunique

edit

Lead

  • The buried megaliths — The body of the article says "fallen," not buried. Which was it? Were the stones still there in 1965, just not in their original standing form?
  • I've gone back to the Burl source, and he uses the word "fallen" in this instance, so I think we should use that in the lede too. Will make the change. And yes, it seems that the stones were still there in 1965, simply recumbent (and perhaps hidden amid undergrowth, although the sources don't explicitly state this). Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason Passmore's notes aren't mentioned in the lead?
  • I like what you've done with it now. It seemed like a bit of the chronology was missing before.
  • The M4 is linked as "M4 motorway" in the lead, but "M4 motorway" in the body.

Context

  • "silent and empty monuments" — Whose words?
  • The archaeologist Mike Parker Pearson suggests that in Neolithic Britain, stone was associated with the dead, and wood with the living. — Why?
  • His argument stemmed from an ethnographic comparison drawn with recent Madagascan memorial practices coupled with his arguments about the chronological development of the Stonehenge ceremonial landscape. To be honest I think it would be a bit too complex to start discussing how he built his argument in this particular article. Certainly relevant for the main Stone circles in the British Isles and Brittany article, but not so much here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • are reported as having existed — Where do the reports come from?
  • It doesn't seem particularly important, the passive voice just made me curious. Perhaps as many as seven possible stone circles once existed would do the trick.

Description

  • a photocopy of the original site plan — Reiss's plan, or another?

Discovery and destruction

  • the circle had been broken up about thirty years prior — Any word on why/how?
  • Unfortunately not. Although it was most probably achieved by lighting fires around the stones to crack them and then throwing on cold water to accentuate the cracking. That's what happened at Avebury, certainly, when folks wanted to destroy the stones. It may be that a farmer just wanted the stones out of the way if they wanted to convert a field to arable use, although it may instead be that the stones were broken up to be used as road metal or building material, again things that occurred at other prehistoric sites in southern England. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense. I wonder if they might be mentioned in a newsletter/journal that the society puts out, but pretty tangential to the article.
  • He produced a plan of the site as it then existed — Is there a diagram, and can it be included in the article?
  • these stones were removed during construction of the M4 motorway — Does the M4 now cover where the circle once was?

Interesting article, Midnightblueowl. Comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to read through the article, Usernameunique. Glad you found it to be of some interest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, Midnightblueowl. Adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

edit

Support: I think this article does an admirable job of making a coherent story out of something rather (and literally) fragmentary. Just a few queries from me which don't affect my support. Sarastro (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have one or two problems with archaeologists in these situations. They often produce some rather wild and dubious imaginings. But perhaps I'm a little biased. However, I wonder if any historians (as opposed to archaeologists) have made suggestions regarding the purpose of stone circles? As it is, the frantic speculations about associations with the dead and the supernatural make me a little wary. This is not to say we need to go into detail; I just wonder are there any other overviews of current thinking? (It occurs to me I may have a few issues where archaeology is concerned... Please feel free to ignore my insane ramblings on this point)
  • Oh, you made me chuckle with that comment! I think it's true that archaeologists (or at least, prehistorians) have less to work with than historians (at least when it comes to thought and belief) and thus can have space to be a little more imaginative in their interpretation at times. It's also the case that in the United States and Britain, archaeology is more closely aligned with anthropology than history and thus is influenced by anthropological theory (which can definitely be highly imaginative at times). As far as I am aware, few if any historians have spent time discussing the stone circles, for the obvious reason that the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age lies considerably outside the boundaries of recorded history. The only exception I can think of is the historian Ronald Hutton (The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles and then Pagan Britain), but in his writings he tends to lay out the various different theories about the nature of the stone circles that have already been proposed rather than putting forward his own interpretations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the 19th century, the megaliths in Fir Clump Stone Circle were levelled and the circle destroyed.": This appears in the lead but does not come out quite as strongly in the main body where we simply have "He also recorded that the circle had been broken up about thirty years prior". (I'm guessing we don't know how or why?) To strengthen this a little, I wonder would it be better to start the section with this, or something like "The circle was broken up at some point around 1860", or if we want to be more cautious, "The antiquarian A.D. Passmore recorded in 1894 that the circle had been broken up about thirty years prior. In the late nineteenth century, he produced two notebooks... etc"
  • Perhaps this discrepancy in tone is best corrected by altering the sentence in the lede. I'll change "levelled and the circle destroyed" to "levelled and by the 1890s the antiquarian A. D. Passmore observed that the circle was no longer visible". Hopefully that resolves the discrepancy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A.D. Passmore produced two notebooks": Produced does not quite sound right, as if he designed them for publication. I wonder would something like "filled two books with notes" (which doesn't sound quite right either) be more appropriate?
  • Do we know what happened to the stones? Are they potentially under the M4? Or perhaps now sitting unsuspected in someone's garden? Also, was there any other reaction to this at the time, such as in the local press? (I appreciate that the answer to these is almost certainly "we don't know", but I wonder if a search of 1960s newspapers might reveal something?) Sarastro (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately I have not come across any mention of what happened to the stones in any of the published literature. I wonder if the stones may actually still be somewhere in or near to Burderop Wood, either piled up or buried, perhaps shattered into smaller fragments. It would be nice if the creation of this Wikipedia article might encourage further research on the Fir Clump Stone Circle, research which might reveal more about the actual destruction of the circle and what happened to the stones. As for the 1960s newspapers, it is always possible that a note was published somewhere, but if so it certainly hasn't been referenced in later archaeological publications. Moreover, I am loathe at this point to devote the vast amount of time to scouring Wiltshire press archives that such a search would necessitate! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're probably part of someone's rock garden... and they have no idea! No worries on this. I was hoping there might be something online, but I see that the British Newspaper Archive doesn't have anything for the appropriate dates. And I agree it would be rather good if someone did a little more digging on this. Perhaps literally. Sarastro (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed some replies above to other questions. Is there anything we could add, even if it's just a note, about destruction/removal of similar sites, or something general on why they were destroyed? Even if it's not on this specific site, it may be useful to know the kind of things that happened to similar places. Sarastro (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the replies. I'm more than happy with these responses, and as I said, I was supporting anyway. As long as you're not secretly an archaeologist or something like that! Sarastro (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG

edit
  • Convert templates are missing.
  • In the lead. Fir Clump Stone Circle measured 107 m by 86.5 m in diameter. A circle has one diameter; concentric circles have distinct diameters. What is being referred to with these two numbers? The inner and outer diameters? Also, converts needed. Also, prose is overly convoluted. Perhaps:
    • The diameter of the outer circle was 107 metres (351 ft) and the inner circle, 86.5 metres (284 ft) ... ??
      • But not even that, because later on, the article says: it measured 107 metres (351 ft) by 86.5 metres (284 ft) in total width. Now diameter is width? Why "total"? 107 x 86.5 would be a rectangle. How can a circle have two total widths, and is that diameter or not? No idea what these numbers are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see your point. The numbers provided in the lead were those of the outer ring. To make this clear I've changed "in diameter" to "in total diameter". I've also added mention of the inner ring diameter. (Does this work? I can always make it more explicit). The differing diameters (107 m by 86.5 m) stem from the fact that the "stone circle" is not (despite its name) a perfect circle, but an oval, and hence its diameter differs at different points. I've added mention of the oval-shape to the lead so that this becomes clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit

Comments to come. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I agree with SG abut the slight confusion over the dimensions. A suggestion, if I can: in the Description section, perhaps open with the quote from Field and McOmish, which would clarify the shape there before you mention the measurements. You can then paraphrase that into the lead to make clear they are ovoid, and perhaps give the more complete measurements there, rather than just "107 m by 86.5 m", which does suggest something rectangular. Aside from that, and the conversion for those who still use imperial measurements, this seems to meet the FA criteria. – SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, SchroCat, both for your time and your support. As you suggest, I've brought the Field and McOmish quote forward, so that it appears before we mention the measurements. I've also clarified that the dimensions given are those of the outer ring. Hopefully that clears things up a bit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GB

edit

Support - it's a shame we have lost it. Can we check the usage of "also" is really warranted? It's an ugly word that often breaks the flow. (No big deal of course). Graham Beards (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham. I've removed one instance of "also" and changed another to "similarly". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod

edit
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fir_Clump_Stone_Circle/archive1&oldid=940912326"