Talk:Julliberrie's Grave/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk · contribs) 11:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• It would be preferable to have at least some kind of a date given in the lede, as to when Julliberrie's Grave was constructed. Currently, it says: "Constructed during Britain's Early Neolithic period...", but a range in years would be helpful.

• A very good idea. I've followed the example of the FA-rated Coldrum Long Barrow article by going with "Probably constructed in the fourth millennium BCE, during Britain's Early Neolithic period,..." Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Iron Age and Romano-British history. "Archaeologists found several Romano-British burials—both inhumations and cremations—just to the south of the long barrow..." Somewhat confusing sentence, since previously in the article it says"No evidence for any Early Neolithic human remains have been found at the site". How far away is this south from the Grave? What is its distance?

• No Early Neolithic human remains were found, but Romano-British human remains were. These are two distinct time periods, with thousands of years between the two. I'll try and make this a little bit clearer to avoid confusion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifiying.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Jessup's excavation. "Jessup's investigation confirmed Thurnam's view that the tumulus was a Neolithic long barrow, ascertained that the northern end had been destroyed, and revealed both the polished stone axe and the Romano-British burials" Is this the only thing they found? This is the complete result of the excavation?

• Much of what the excavation found is already discussed throughout the article; indeed, the vast majority of things that we know about the site stem from this particular excavation. I think that to go into detail on these points again at this juncture of the article would be needlessly repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• It would be useful to include a JSTOR, Doi or some URL link for the journals in the "Bibliography", since it would help in checking what the sources say.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I don't think these sources have DOIs and they are not on JSTOR, however I certainly can put in URLs. Good idea. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks much better now.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for giving this a read through, 3E1I5S8B9RF7. Let me know if there is anything else you'd like me to delve into or change. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion

I think the article meets the GA criteria. I'm promoting it, accordingly.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed