Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freston (causewayed enclosure)/archive1

Freston (causewayed enclosure)

Featured article candidates/Freston (causewayed enclosure)/archive1

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another Neolithic site in England, this one being investigated by a Canadian research team, for some reason; only one excavation so far, so not a lot of findings to report, which is a pity as there's a possible Neolithic longhouse or Anglo-Saxon hall in part of the site, which I'm sure the team are keen to get to. The article has had a very helpful pre-FAC review from UndercoverClassicist. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sawyer777

very exciting, always happy to see archaeology at FAC! i can commit to a review for this in the next few days. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

initial suggestions/comments:

(lead) i'd link person-days (redirect to "man hour" but still useful for those unfamiliar)
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(lead) it should be "McMaster" not "McMasters" University
Oops. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(site) link Anglo-Saxon here as well
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(discovery, fieldwalking & watching briefs) "though this will require excavation to confirm." i'd change that to something more like "this would require excavation" or maybe "excavation would be required for confirmation".
I agree that "will" doesn't sound ideal, but I don't think "would" works any better. The problem with "would" is that "X would later be required" can mean "X happened later, as was required"; we need a form of words that can't be misread to indicate it actually happened. I settled on "will", even though it jars a bit with the past tense of the narrative, because it's a true statement -- right now, excavation will be required to confirm what those features are. I thought about reversing it so that instead of saying what will be needed, it says that it hasn't happened: "... some of which could be Saxon sunken-featured buildings, though as they have not yet been excavated this has not been confirmed", but I think that's uglier and less true to the source's point, which is just "here's a theory, but it needs excavation to confirm it". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(finds from 2019 excavation) "acid soil" --> "acidic soil"
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(sources) i'd add ISSNs to journals/periodicals where available, for consistency & usefulness to the curious reader
I generally don't add ISSNs, though I often see people adding them to articles I write, and I don't remove them. I don't find them helpful myself. If you think it's necessary I'll add them, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
one citation does already have an ISSN, which is why i suggested it. i like to add them, but if you don't usually, then i have no objection to you removing that singular one! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

overall the prose and such is great, not many issues at all. i think i'll do a source review for this as well - if i've not done that by sunday, ping me. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]