Talk:Maiden Castle, Cheshire/GA1

GA Review

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

Commencing review

I will undertake this review. The article appears neutral and stable; its images appear to be in good order, and it is generally well-written. With some exceptions (see later comments), it is appropriately referenced. Its scope and coverage appears generally appropriate.

Specific points

• What is the source for: "It has been argued that they could have been military sites constructed in response to invasion from continental Europe, sites built by invaders, or a military reaction to social tensions caused by an increasing population and consequent pressure on agriculture." Particularly with the sentence beginning "It has been argued...", the source needs to appear directly at the end of the sentence. Given that this implies a range of scholarly views, I would also suggest that we need plural citations here, perhaps one after each phrase, giving a source that has expressed the view just described.

• I've doubled up the reference, it was at the end of the paragraph. The various theories are explained by Sharples in one book as part of outlining the evolution of the study of hillforts at the start of one of his chapters so there's no need to add other citations. Nev1 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am a fan of Time Team and it is populated by serious archaeologists. Nevertheless, it doesn't look good as a source for a significant point in the article. Is there no published reliable source (possibly written by the same guy) that says this?

• The Time Team website is merely quoting Barry Cunliffe, an expert on the British Iron Age and hillforts, rather than proposing their own conclusions. I'm sure we can rely on the website to correctly quote an important archaeologist. Nev1 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• That is a very sanguine view of anything connected with the world of TV :-) Fine with me. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Gendered language should be avoided where possible. Use of "man-made" really is not needed. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Gender-neutral_language. Replace with "human-made", "artificial" as appropriate, or rephrase: for example, "Maiden Castle has no man-made defences on its northern and western sides..." could become "No defences have been constructed on Maiden Castle's northern and western sides..."

• With all due respect, I think that's absurd. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Probably because you're not a woman. Anyway this is an old, old, indeed almost archaeological debate which was mostly over in the 70s. Unless we have evidence that the women did not work on constructing, defending, living in etc hill forts, let's not presume otherwise? :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's so politically correct I winced when I read it, and "human-made" doesn't really scan. Gender-neutral language is a guideline rather than a policy, and while I agree with it on principle I disagree with its suggested application in this case. Man-made is no more suggestive of male exclusivity than Neil Armstrong stating "one giant leap for mankind". I have changed one occurrence to "artificial" however to avoid repetition as they were close together. Nev1 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think we have reached an era where gender neutrality is not politically correct, but that non-neutrality is politically incorrect. You mention the Armstrong quote. As it happens, back in 1969 there was critical discussion about the choice of words by NASA and Armstrong with, as I recall, NASA insisting that what Armstrong had said (or had been meant to say) was "one small step for a man", not "for man" (at that stage in the evolution of this discussion, 'mankind' was regarded as less of an issue, and indeed still gets used today by broadcasters... though only, here at least, when they forget their own organisation's guidelines). You are right, 'human-made' does not scan well, which is why alternative wordings are usually better, and why I offered one option. The path you chose is fine too. I made a copyedit to deal with the other instance of the term. Yes, it's just a guideline, and I think one that is always worth observing.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• "...both are 5 ft (1.5 m) high on the inside of the fort and 7 ft (2.1 m), and the internal one is 5 ft (1.5 m) on the exterior." Something is wrong here - some words are missing I think?

• Urgh, that bit of prose was something of a car crash, it looks like I got bored mid-sentence. I've fixed it. Nev1 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any particular reason Varley has not been used as a source in the article itself, particularly for any opportunities to map out differences of views about the sites, for example between Varley and Forde-Johnston?

• Forde-Johnston's rebuttal of a couple of Verley's points was based on new information, rendering Varley a bit obsolete. Nev1 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have undertaken a few copyedits. Please revert or alter if my changes have altered the sense in an inaccurate way.

Conclusion

This article should pass GA following responses to points raised above. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)