Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Porlock 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) 04:38, 28 April 2018 [1].

Porlock Stone Circle

edit
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of two surviving stone circles dating from the late Neolithic or early Bronze Age that are located in Exmoor, southwestern England. The other, Withypool Stone Circle, is already rated as an FA, and this short article is presently a GA. Those with an interest in archaeology and/or the West Country might like to give it a read. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Factotem

edit
  • Lead
  • Porlock Stone Circle is a stone circle located near to the village of Porlock in the south-western English county of Somerset. It is found within Exmoor. -> Porlock Stone Circle is a stone circle located on Exmoor, near to the village of Porlock in the south-western English county of Somerset."?
  • ...with the stones perhaps having supernatural associations for those who built the circles. -> "...and the stones perhaps had supernatural associations for those who built the circles."?
  • ...possibly indicates... Never sure about this. It either indicates or it doesn't, surely? Maybe replacing both with "suggests" is better?
  • Location
  • I'm not sure why the lead gives more details about the location than this section does. The lead summarises the main body, so I think the details should be repeated here. Also, Porlock should be linked.
  • Three of the four sentences in the 1st para begin "The circle...". Any way of mixing it up a little to avoid the repetition?
  • Context
  • They are most densely concentrated in south-western Britain... Is there any reason why you use "Britain" here, when generally you've used "England"?
  • There's no particular reason. I suspect that I just followed what term that the original RS used (although I could be wrong about that). Happy to change the language if you think it necessary; "Britain" is perhaps a more neutral term given that it has a pan-historical geographical, as opposed to purely national (and more temporally restricted) meaning - plus there are always the Cornish nationalists who insist that Cornwall is not (or at least should not) be considered part of England. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair enough to say that "Stone circles are found in most areas of Britain...", as you do. It does seem a little odd to then say "They are most densely concentrated in south-western Britain...", given that, a) you've generally used "England" up to that point, and b) you finish that sentence with a specific mention for Scotland. Notwithstanding the sensibilities of the Cornish nationalists, that region is nevertheless officially part of England, but at the end of the day, this is just a nitpicky point concerning consistency. Not a huge issue, and not something I'd oppose on. Factotem (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "south-western Britain" to "south-western England" here, as you suggest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description
  • ...a strong chthonic element... "Chthonic" is a great word that I've never heard of before. It definitely needs to be linked. Maybe you could add an explanation, but that's a little awkward to do elegantly when its part of a quote.
  • The archaeologist Mark Gillings... in the 2nd para. He's already been introduced, so you can simply write "Gillings...".
  • 57 metres (187 feet) to the southeast of the circle's edge is a linear setting of small stones. is a MOS:NUMNOTES no-no. "There is a linear setting of small stones 57 metres (187 feet) to the southeast of the circle's edge." would fix it.
  • ... it would suggest that Porlock stone circle... Missing a "the" before Porlock.
  • ...carried out by the archaeologists Mark Gillings and Jeremy Taylor of the University of Leicester Again, Gillings is already introduced as an archaeologist. My feeling is that you could just leave it up to the reader to divine that Taylor is also an archaeologist, but if you want to be explicit, maybe "...Gillings and fellow archaeologist, Jeremy Taylor of the University..."?
Did you miss this? Factotem (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I must have done, my apologies. I have gone with your proposed wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...which Gilling's team... "Gillings's" per MOS:POSS.
  • Stones have also been added to the circle in recent years; thus heritage managers face a question as to whether they should remove the more recently-added stones or to accept these as part of the circle's on-going biography. Not sure that that's a correct use of hyphenation in "recently-added". I would be tempted to simplify this sentence as "Stones have also been added to the circle in recent years, and heritage managers face the question as to whether they should be removed or accepted as part of the circle's on-going biography."
  • Sources
  • I don't see any problems with the quality of the sources, and all books are from reputable publishers.
  • I checked a random set of seven refs across four different sources that could be viewed online, mostly in GBooks previews – Burl 2000 (ref #16), Gray 1950 (#19 & #24), Gillings & Taylor (#37 & #38), Hutton (#6 & #9) – and found only one niggle: the source for the statement ...in 1950 Gray could identify 21 stones as part of the circle... does not make clear in which year, 1928 or 1950, Gray identified the 21 stones; not something that leads me to doubt the veracity of sourcing.
  • You've dated Excavation and Survey at Porlock Stone Circle and Row, Exmoor to 2015, but the SANH index dates it to 2014
  • The journal in question is printed with the year "2015"; it may be that it was actually released in 2014, but "2015" is the number on the front cover, so I think it would cause confusion to go with "2014". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've dated Geophysical Survey at Porlock Stone Circle to 2012, but the linked document and the SANH index dates it to 2011.
  • I believe it's preferred to use consistent ISBN formats for all books. The ISBN-13 for Riley and Wilson-North's The Field Archaeology of Exmoor is 9781873592588, according to the Worldcat listing.
  • I wonder if this worldcat record provides a valid oclc number for the Proceedings of the SANH Vol 74 listed in the bibliography? I couldn't find any such records for volumes 155 and 158, though I must confess the search was becoming a tad boring and I abandoned it before completion.

Hope this helps Factotem (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Few more comments:

  • The lead is quite short. I wonder if a bit more of the description can be summarised there?
  • The lead gives a date range of 3,300 to 900 BCE, but in the main body, the only figure mentioned is the slightly different 3,000 BCE, and 900 is not mentioned at all.
  • I've added mention of the 3,300 to 900 BCE date to the article, using Burl as a reference. I've also made sure that it's added to all the other GA and FA rated stone circle articles I've worked on too (so well spotted!). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burl gives us the broadest date range in which stone circles were erected (which has been ascertained by looking at absolute dating evidence from a variety of different sites). Obviously, it did not take over two thousand years to build the Porlock ring (or did it....?) so it has been produced at one particular date within that range. Given that archaeological excavation has not revealed any charcoal or anything else that could be used to ascertain absolute dates for the construction of the circle, archaeologists are relying on educated guesswork as to when it was built. Gillings for instance thought it might be Middle Bronze Age, which would put it nearer to the latter end of Burl's wider date range. I'll try and incorporate some additional prose making it clearer when the circle was likely erected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've double-checked Gillings' write up of his excavation and it does not give proposed dates for the monument (merely a reference to the circle perhaps being middle Bronze Age). I'm not sure that the ENP booklet is particularly reliable in this context, so I'd rather just leave the nature of precise dates absent. Hopefully—and this is a point Gillings makes in his article—more targeted excavation can be carried out in future which will provide good evidence for the date of construction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Happy with that. Factotem (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fuller archaeological investigation in 2013 revealed eighteen stones, eleven of which are upright and eight of which are fallen Doesn't add up.
  • You're right, but this is exactly what the source says: "This exercise succeeded in identifying 18 stones - 11 upright and 8 fallen - as well as relocating Stone B through excavation." Perhaps it's a typo in the original? I don't really know what course of action to take here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest ignoring the total and simply state that the exercise revealed eleven upright and eight fallen stones. Factotem (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it slightly odd that a 2009 survey found 10 stones, and the dig only four years later found 18 (or 19). Maybe a brief statement explaining the discrepancy, if possible (are the additional stones those that have been recently added, or did the dig unearth buried stones)?
  • I googled porlock stone circle, but other than the ENP booklet (which, aside from the date question, is not a significant source), could find nothing to suggest that the article is not comprehensive or is not a full survey of the sources.

Factotem (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all your comments, Factotem. I think that I have responded to all those requiring a response, although in some cases you may have a follow up question. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few more, very minor points that need responses, either here or in the article, inserted above. I would also add that I'm not too keen on using the dashes where an author is repeated in the bibliography. If someone carelessly inserts a new source by a different author between the two, then it will get messed up. That's a personal view, and a somewhat nitpicky one at that. I don't believe there's any policy that says you can't do this, so it's not going to affect the support I will be happy to give once the last minor points are addressed. Factotem (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I have now covered everything, Factotem. Again, thanks very much for your time and attention on this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

edit
  • "although more recent assessments regard it as a different form of monument, known as "stone settings"" I wonder if there's a singular/plural problem here? I.e., should this be "although more recent assessments regard it as a different form of monument, known as a "stone setting""? Maybe not. Also, I wonder if it's worth linking "stone setting" and creating a stub? I've never heard of this, and I'd be interested to know the difference between a stone circle and a stone setting(s).
  • "standing stones, and linear stone settings" This could also be interpreted as unexplained jargon
  • "micaceous sandstone"
  • "into the article" is an odd construction. Also, I'd imagine "chthonic" isn't going to be familiar to many readers (but I may be wrong).
  • I've changed "article" to "circle"; that may have just been a silly error. As for chthonic, I'm just not sure if there are any alternative terms or synonyms that could be used. Perhaps I could wikilink it to the Wiktionary entry? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel we never really got to the addition of the stones. Do we know anything more about this? Why were they added? Which stones are new? When were they added? Who added them? (I'm guessing we really don't know!)
  • Unfortunately, I don't think that the RS really delved into this at all - it remains a bit of a mystery. I don't imagine that the site attracts a great deal of visitors, and of those it receives I can't imagine many of the 'archaeology' lot being interested in adding stones; indeed, they'd probably regard it as desecration! My suggestion would be that the stones have been added by those with Earth mysteries interests (some of whom regard it as appropriate to alter, or in their eyes 'correct', such monuments), or those who see the circle largely as a marker in the landscape rather than a site with specifically archaeological value (must as how walkers add stones to cairns in various hiking areas). This, of course, purely my own conjecture and could not be put into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A very strong article. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, Josh. They proved useful in improving the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two other quick comments:

  • The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland and Brittany is apparently The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland, and Brittany. Does your copy look different to that?
  • Why have you italicised "National Heritage List for England"?
  • It's not intentional, it's just that I included it in the "website" part of the citation, and that automatically italicised it. I shall change it to "publisher"; that should convert it into a non-italicised situation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that's helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Josh. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

edit

Whats with the formatting of the sources? Its ok to repeat source names, rather than type ------- Ceoil (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me Ceoil, but I don't quite understand the above comment. Could you elucidate further? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means repetition of the author names, replacing them with that rather strange horizontal line. Eric Corbett 10:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Well, we have the dash to avoid repetition in several other FAs, including the thematically linked Withypool Stone Circle (which is the TFA of the day, if anyone's interested). So it's just about keeping a level of standardisation to articles on the same broad topic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eric Corbett

edit

Support Comments from Richard Nevell

edit

First of all, good work on an interesting article. I like the approach taken to giving broader context to understand the site, particularly where there are holes in our knowledge. I also like the amount of detail on the investigation of the site as that shapes our understanding and is part of its later biography.

The lead gives a proper summary of the subject and I think it’s a sensible move to state early on that we’re not entirely sure of their purpose. I like the way the ‘location’ section mentions other Bronze Age monuments visible from Porlock Stone Circle. Is there any chance of a map to go with it? The Environment Agency have made their LIDAR data available under an open licence, and the area around the circle has resolution of 0.5m which might show off the landscape quite nicely, perhaps with markers for key features. I think it would be worth saying how close Berry Castle is, because the phrasing in this section makes it sounds like they’re adjacent. The article on Berry Castle indicates it’s an Iron Age or Roman site rather than Bronze Age, so it might be worth noting that. It’s possible a publication somewhere may have commented on the visibility between the two sites.

The ‘context’ section does a very good job of giving background information for this type of site and Exmoor generally. The one thing I’d change is that here you have ‘Mike Parker Pearson suggests that’ whereas later on you have ‘Leslie Grinsell suggested that’ and ‘Gillings suggested that’ so it would be worth double checking the tenses. The ‘description’ section notes that some stones were removed for road metalling, do we know roughly when that was? Would it be possible to comment on the significance of the ‘inversion of the upright stone ideal’ and what Gillings thinks this may have been meant to convey? In the ‘investigation’ section, for the 1928 digging it’s mentioned that no charcoal was found but it’s not immediately clear why this is mentioned. Would it be worth mentioning in the lead that despite excavations no dating evidence has been recovered for when the circle was built? I see Josh asked about the added stones; it’s a shame we don’t more but of course we have to work within the constraints of the available sources. The discovery of the wheel seems significant and while the uncertainty over the dating is tricky to tackle in the lead where you want to be clear and concise, but I think it would be worth trying.

It’s a small world, the 2009 survey in Exmoor was one of the fieldwork options when I was doing my undergrad degree at Leicester. It’s interesting to see the site written up for the public. Would it be worth contacting Mark Gillings to cast an eye over the article? Richard Nevell (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard and thanks for taking the time to offer your comments. As per your suggestion, I have changed "Mike Parker Pearson suggests that" to "suggested that" to ensure consistency. As for a map of the landscape, I'd certainly be interested in seeing such an addition made (although I'm not sure if there is much room), however I'm not in the position to spend time making such a map at present. Your other comments require a little more thought and investigation so I will have to get back to you on those. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for the mention of no charcoal being found in the 1928 excavation, Gray does not explain the relevance of this absence; he simple states that "no 'relics' were found nor any charcoal". Presumably he said this because charcoal was known to be something found at other stone circles and prehistoric sites. Obviously, these days charcoal is exciting for archaeologists because it can be used in radiocarbon dating, but this was not he case in Gray's day so it could not have been this which he was referring to in his article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with your suggestion, I have made mention that no absolute dating evidence has been found to the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments, Richard. Was there anything else that you wanted to add; any follow up questions or the like? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly happy with the article and have no further questions so have moved to support. If Gray thought it was worth mentioning that there was no charcoal, it's worth including in the article - it's just a shame he didn't explain why he thought it was important as it leaves us with OR to fill in the gaps. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Clear, well written, evidently comprehensive, widely and well referenced, with good images. Meets the FA criteria, in my view. And is a jolly good read too. Tim riley talk 10:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Like Withypool, an interesting read, clearly well-researched, and does a good job of putting together what is known and identifying holes in current knowledge. A few comments, but just nit-picking, not anything that should hold up promotion (assuming Richard is happy above):

  • about forty-three stones in the circle about seems an odd preposition to a precise figure.
  • The year it was scheduled might be worth including.
  • Similarly, you might consider a very brief definition of scheduling for the uninitiated.
  • heritage managers face the question as to whether they should be removed Is there any clear consensus on this? Or a notable controversy that could be mentioned?

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we have five statements of support and the images and sources have checked out okay. Unless there's anything else that anyone wishes to add, it might be time for promotion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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/Porlock_Stone_Circle/archive1&oldid=1138469228"