Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chestnuts Long Barrow/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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 29 March 2020 [1].

Chestnuts Long Barrow edit

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the Medway Megaliths, a series of Early Neolithic long barrows in southeast England. Three of the articles in this series, Coldrum Long Barrow, Smythe's Megalith, and Coffin Stone, are already FAs. Hopefully this article, which has been a GA since 2016, can now join them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim edit

An excellent article. Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • witnessed inhabitation—"habitation" seems more natural
  • link "iconoclastic" at first occurrence
  • silica sand—Is "silica" necessary? Sand is usually assumed to be mainly silicon dioxide unless otherwise stated
  • This isn't my strong point but I certainly have no objection to removing "silica" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention acidic soils but there isn't much to suggest why it's acidic. Your source mentions the local geology, perhaps add a sentence
  • That could be a good idea, but frankly I have no idea why the soil is acidic; I don't think the source cited gives any explanation, at least not at the cited page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the capitalisation of "Amygdaloideae", but perhaps pipe as "plum family", "stone-fruit trees" or similar
  • Prior to the adoption of this name—no indication whether this was last year or 200 years ago
  • Ah, a fair point. Although we don't have an exact date I will try to make the time frame clearer in the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Göbekli Tepe was also built by non-farming hunter-gatherers/foragers, worth mentioning?
  • I'm not sure if that would be particularly necessary here; it might read as being a bit off-topic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2300 but 3,500
  • two hones—perhaps link to sharpening stone. I don't think the noun sense is much used now
  • All clear on duplinks and headbomb/unreliable tools

@Jimfbleak: - Many thanks for taking the time to read through this article and for offering your thoughts. Hope that you found it interesting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:02, 20 ::February 2020 (UTC)

With regard to the acidity, although Alexander mentions the geology on p. 2., it's not necessarily the case that sands are acidic, although here they clearly are, so best left as is. Happy to ignore Göbekli Tepe, just happened to read it a bit about a couple of days ago. All looks good, and Josh doesn't appear to be finding major issues either, so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Keith D edit

  • I do not know why this was switched from the established unit order of imperial first. Keith D (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keith D "established order"? Articles on scientific topics are nearly always written with metric first, and I'm sure that you are aware that, unlike in the US, metric is taught in UK schools and frequently used in real life. I've written 70+ FAs and the only time I've put US units first is an article about a specifically US bird species always put metric first. I can't see why this should be switched to your personal preference, and I'd oppose such a change, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

  • "The Chestnuts Long Barrow, also known as Stony or Long Warren" Stony Warren, presumably? Worth spelling out.
  • I'm really not sure here. I'd actually assumed that it was "Stony", not "Stony Warren", but your comment has got me thinking. The source (Alexander 1961, p. 1) says only "its earlier name was Stony or Long Warren", which could permit either interpretation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Archaeologists have established that the monument was built by pastoralist communities" That this monument was built by several communities?
  • No, sorry, I was asking about the claim you were making rather than making a suggestion. Is it really the case that archaeologists have determined that this particular monument was built by multiple communities? I assumed that what you wanted to say was that monuments of this type were built by pastoralist communities, without making any claim about precisely who (i.e., how many communities) built this one. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose the text should specify that it is monuments of this type that were built at this time, as there isn't any specific absolute dating evidence for this particular monument. I've amended the sentence accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three further surviving long barrows, Kit's Coty House, the Little Kit's Coty House, and the Coffin Stone," It's disputed whether the Coffin Stone is a long barrow, isn't it?
  • "by medieval robbers" Earlier you suggested that they may have been robbers; why the certainty now?
  • I've changed this to "due to damage caused in the medieval period," Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He suggested that these megaliths were covered with sand until the capstones were placed atop the chamber, at which the sand was then cleared" At which time? This doesn't read right to me.
  • I've changed this sentence to the following: "He suggested that the long barrow's builders kept the megaliths in place by filling the chamber with sand. Once the capstone was placed atop and the chamber was stable, he thought, the builders would have removed the supporting sand." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the drystone wall" What drystone wall? Also, isn't it dry stone rather than drystone?
    The wall is introduced at the end of the previous paragraph; do you think we need to expand on this in the article? The source itself used "drystone" as one word rather than two, although our Wikipedia article is titled "Dry stone". I've changed it to the two-word option (although have no particular preference either way) and have also added a Wikilink to our article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So you did; apologies. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back later. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Many archaeologists have suggested that the construction of these monuments reflects an attempt to mark control and ownership over the land, thus reflecting a change in mindset brought about by the transition from the hunter-gatherer Mesolithic to the pastoralist Early Neolithic." You claim many but cite one; does Hutton claim/cite many? If I was being critical, I'd say this subsection was a little heavy on weasel words.
  • I think sherd and daub are jargon. I'd recommend a link or explanation at first mention.
  • "The existence of Chestnuts Long Barrow has been known since the 18th century." Known to antiquarians, maybe? It was clearly known in the middle ages...
  • "During the late 19th century, the field in which the barrow is located was used as a paddock.[2]" Does this not belong in the "subsequent use" section? This may not be the only example of this in that section.
  • Yes, I think it certainly does. I've moved it. There are also some sentences which could be moved ("In 1953, the archaeologist Leslie Grinsell reported that several small trees and bushes had grown up within the megaliths.[102] That year, the field was prepared for horticultural use, being levelled and ploughed, although the area around the megaliths was left undisturbed.") but which chronologically slot in better in their current location. I'm not completely averse to moving these too, if you think it advisable? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colebrooke source - technically, I don't think you need archive or access information as the link is a courtesy link. Your citation would be fine without it - you're citing the journal, not the archived web page.
  • Your Killick reference seems to be in a different format to the others?
  • I don't really like the inclusion of publishers for journals, but I suppose it's doing no harm. If I was being really picky, I might note that a lot of them are published by university presses, rather than solely by scholarly societies.
  • I'm very happy to remove these; it does not particularly bother me either way. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great article - with a comparatively full bibliography! I am taking part in the WikiCup. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per WP:LEADLENGTH, your lead is too long! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had actually expanded it from it's GA rated version in anticipation of the FAC, but I see your point so I have trimmed it back again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also also, I wonder if, compositionally, the Geograph photo might be the best of the lead? It gives perhaps the best impression of the whole structure. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you're right; it would work better in the lede. I've swapped the two images around. It's a shame we don't have any better quality photographs of the site. The fact that it is on private land and (at least at present) does not appear to be open to visitors obviously makes this more difficult. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and attention, Josh. I'll respond to your other two points soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to everything now, Josh. Was there anything else that you'd like me to take a look at in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - no further comments! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Red King edit

  • Dimensions: abbreviate or don't abbreviate, 'X kilometres (Y mi)' looks amateurish (and I don't understand why it is default behaviour of template:convert!). So use either {{convert|10|km|abbr=on}} or {{convert|10|km|abbr=off}} (which produce 10 km (6.2 mi) or 10 kilometres (6.2 miles) ).
  • Ah, I don't really mind either way, but I've added "|abbr=off" throughout, just to ensure consistency. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is interested, there is an explanation of why template:convert behaves as it does, at Template talk:Convert#Inconsistent abbreviation. It is intended behaviour. --Red King (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passive voice is best avoided unless it is utterly unimportant who did it "an MRI scan was taken of the suspected area" is ok but "In 1961, it was noted" is certainly not (tagged). Whenever I see passive voice, I expect wp:WEASEL.
  • 'The chambers were constructed from sarsen,' tagged as needing citation.
  • Ah, that's a case where the next citation along covers the information. I'll duplicate the citation to make things clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My only other thought has been said already: the lead is disproportionately large. Otherwise, a well-written piece. --Red King (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to read through this, Red King. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Distribution_of_long_barrows.png is of fairly poor quality - possible to get a new version with a different base map? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd certainly be happy if someone was able to create a better quality image here although I don't personally have the skills or software to do so, unfortunately. That's why the maps I produce are a bit basic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I'll copyedit as I go through; please revert anything you disagree with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the "Name and location" section could be compressed and simplified, but I'd rather not do it myself since it will mean moving citations around. Here's a suggested rewording:
    Chestnuts Long Barrow is a scheduled ancient monument, standing on private land belonging to a neighbouring house. It lies on the slope of a hill and borrows its name from the Chestnuts, an area of woodland that crowns the hill; it had been previously known as Stony Warren or Long Warren. The barrow is located in the greensand belt, 30 metres (100 feet) above sea level. The underlying geology is a soft sandstone covered with a stratum of white sand.
I don't think you need the name of the house, which is never mentioned again, and there's no need to mention John Alexander for the old names -- that's in the citation.
  • I think you've put together a good paragraph there, and I have used it as the basis for some alterations. However, I have kept the name of the house, as I think it is potentially pertinent information. I have also made some amendments to your proposed wording to make it clear that the term "Chestnuts Long Barrow" is mid-20th century in origin. Also, as noted above, it is unclear if the barrow as known as "Stony" or "Stony Warren", so I've gone with the former to be on the safe side. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we need caps for "Scheduled Ancient Monument", do we? I see it lowercased in sources. Re "Stony Warren": a Google search will find it that name in a Kentish Archaeology Society index; and if that's not enough, if you find "The Pilgrim's Way" by Seán Jennett on Google Books you'll see "Chestnuts, the (Stony Warren)" in the index, so I think we're safe to make it explicit to the reader. It also shows up in Everitt & Everitt, "Continuity and Colonization: The Evolution of Kentish Settlement", again via Google Books. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, lower-case is best here. Also, thank you for finding the reference to "Stone Warren"! (rather foolishly, I hadn't thought to google it...). I'll make the changes in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a big deal, but do you think we really need the quotes from Philp & Dutto, and Ashbee, about the Medway Megaliths? This isn't the overview article about those. Cutting the quotes would let you combine that paragraph with the next one which would flow well.
  • In the two paragraphs starting "The Medway long barrows all conformed..." and "These common architectural features..." I'd suggest moving the sentence about the heights up to join the other sentences about similarities.
  • I'm not sure on this one. I feel that the sentence could work in either of the two paragraphs. If you think that there is a definite advantage to placing it in the paragraph titled "The Medway long barrows all conformed..." then I certainly have no objection, but I don't necessarily see any clear improvement to this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Up to you -- I'm certainly not going to oppose over it -- but I was thinking that it would be natural to draw the inference that the common features indicate regional cohesion after listing all the commonalities. Moving that sentence out of the way would let you combine the commonality sentence with the following "Nevertheless..." in a natural way. Perhaps "...elsewhere in the British Isles, though as with other regional groupings...". It just feels to me that the sentence where it is now interrupts that thought. But if you feel it's better where it is, that's your call.
  • Thinking about it further, I've come to agree with you. Moving the sentence involves rewording it a bit, but that isn't a problem. I've now made the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it reads well now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last paragraph of the Medway Megaliths section you list various opinions about stylistic connections to other groups of megaliths; is there a reason to omit Alexander who (pp. 14-18) considers them to be "an outlier of the Atlantic Coast complex"?
  • There's no particular reason for the omission. I can add this into the article, no problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about including a clip of the southwest corner of this map, which is expired Crown copyright? You don't currently have a map showing the location at that scale, and it also shows Addington Long Barrow (at least, I assume that's what that is).
  • I can certainly see the value of having a map on that scale in the article. I'm less sure, however, how best to go about adding such a map. Simply cropping it from the larger map could end up looking quite messy and would lack a fair bit of contextual information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK -- I can see that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These were arranged as two trilithons. This isn't wrong, but I had to read Alexander to actually understand the layout; perhaps a bit more explanation such as "two trilithons, next to each other, so that the two lintel stones formed the roof of the chamber". Now I do understand it I'm not sure you're reflecting it correctly in the diagram. You show three wall stones on each side, but Alexander's Plan II doesn't show this -- L, for example, he considers to have been a fallen piece of V. Am I missing something?
  • On your first point, I agree. More detail would be helpful here, and I think your proposed wording will work well, so I've added that into the article.
  • On your second point; the (admittedly quite basic) plan I put together is based heavily on Ashbee's plan, itself presented as being modelled on Alexander's (page 7). However, comparing Ashbee's plan with Alexander's, it is clear that there is the discrepancy regarding the number of stones in the chamber which you highlighted. I'll work on creating a new plan based directly on Alexander. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now redone the new plan and added it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks much better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In File:Chestnuts Long Barrow.png, does the test "Area in which..." label the black line below the barrow? That's not very clear, and even if it does, I'm not entirely sure what it means -- why wouldn't that be a closed shape, rather than open at the top? I think it's because the western and southern edges of the barrow weren't detectable, but what you have doesn't really convey that.
  • The wording I used on the plan was based on that in Ashbee's plan ("outline of spread barrow remnant") but considering the issue further, it seems apparent that what this area actually encompassed by the black line actually refers to is the area in which material from the chamber was found, not from the whole of the barrow. So the wording I have used is misleading here.. Would you recommend that I simply get rid of that black line altogether in the plan? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you were right to get rid of it; details are in Alexander for those interested, and it's not the sort of thing a reader encountering the topic for the first time needs to know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in that picture, you describe the black stones as "found erect and in place", but Alexander records straightening at least one or two of the wall stones, so I think this needs to be hedged.
  • Well spotted. I've replaced "found erect and in place" with "found largely in place"; do you think that that does the trick? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the plan PNG should have a source, since it gives explicit information not easy to cross-reference to the sourcing in the text.
  • The source is already given in the image information (it is based on the illustration in Ashbee 2000 p.339); however, do you mean that the source of the plan should be given in the image caption within the article itself? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, sorry, wasn't clear. I mention a citation for the caption text, which you've now got. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • a large stone, designated 'G' by excavators: unless I missed it, this is the only place you use the letters given by Alexander. I'd cut this if there's no other reference in the article. One place you might use it would be the photos of the site; if so I think you'd have to add the labels to the PNG plan so the reader could cross-reference.
  • A dry stone within the chamber wall would have also blocked access: a couple of problems here: "dry stone" is a building method, so I think you probably meant to say "dry stone wall"; and do you really mean "within the chamber wall"? Alexander indicated it would have blocked the west end of the chamber, didn't he?
  • Yes, this sentence has been a bit butchered somehow; it used to include the word "wall" in there. I'll reword it so that it makes sense. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Any reason not to make it "A dry stone wall across the west end of the chamber..."? Alexander makes it clear that the greensand blocks are at the west end, and he describes them as a wall. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might consider using Alexander's Plate I under fair use as a "before" picture, for comparison with the two pictures you have of the current site.
  • Good idea. I have added it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good, but I just read Ashbee (2000), and on p.340 he reprints a 1925 picture that is better than Alexander's -- can we use that? Sorry! Should have read that first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The west-looking photo is quite poor quality. I don't think I'd oppose on that basis but if it can be improved that would be good.
  • We could certainly do with some better quality photographs. Unfortunately, these seem to be the only ones we have on Wikimedia Commons at present; I couldn't find any better ones on Geograph either, although it can be hoped that some better images might be produced in future. The fact that the site no longer seems to be open to the public in any form does not help matters. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Design and construction" section you use "X suggested that" a lot. How about using language like "The earthen mound was probably constructed before the chamber", or "these may have been once placed in the chamber but later removed...", with the citation providing the person making the suggestion? These are experts and their suggestions are not controversial, though we shouldn't present them as definite facts. Similarly in the earlier section that speculates about connections to other megaliths, how much value does the reader get from the names, particularly if they are unlinked, so that the reader can't find out more about them? Another example: From the excavation, archaeologists expressed the view that the barrow was probably trapezoidal or D-shaped...: I think this just refers to Alexander; could we cut this to just "The barrow was probably trapezoidal or D-shaped..."?
  • I've made the amendment you suggest here on "probably trapezoidal"; I'm not so sure on some of the other points. When it comes to the names at the earlier juncture in the article, it is possible that articles will be established about these individuals in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't oppose over this, but just to clarify: my feeling is that the goal of paragraphs like these is to tell the reader what the consensus (or lack of consensus) of archaeological thought is on this sort of thing. We shouldn't add information in the middle of that explanation unless it helps the reader. If the archaeologists involved are not notable; if there's no mention of a back-and-forth debate about differing points of view; if the reader doesn't learn anything from the mention of the names, are we really doing the reader a favour? I know there's a editing reflex to attribute opinions inline, but I don't think that really applies here -- this is not "Famous singer said their spouse was cheating on them"; it's an academic statement supported by a reliable source. But if you prefer it as it is, that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the foreground of the site, excavators found: do you mean "forecourt"?
  • Is "tall-stones" a typo for "wall-stones"? I understood it but I thought the latter was the usual term.
  • Paul Ashbee, who is being cited here, uses the term "tall stones". I'm not particularly attached to that term, however, should someone think of a more appropriate replacement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He uses "tall stones", without the hyphen; "wall-stones" is Alexander's term. I think either is fine, but "tall-stones" with the hyphen is not -- it implies it's a term of art. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how this should be handled, but since Alexander doesn't mention the fire-and-water breaking of the wall-stones, it might not have been known in 1961, which means that citing his denial of iconoclasm as a reason for the breakage is a little misleading, placed as it is after Ashbee's comments.
  • The breaking up of stones with fire and water was something that William Stukeley had recorded at Avebury, back in the 18th century (if my memory serves me correctly). While I couldn't say for sure that Alexander knew of Stukeley's reports (which had been published), it would seem likely. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Having just read the Ashbee papers I see that reference. This is bothering me a bit. Could we reverse the order and have Alexander's explanation first? Then when we give Ashbee's opinion -- and here is a case where I do think the names are relevant, because of the details of the disagreement -- we can say that Alexander does not mention the possibility of fire and water damage. Incidentally, looking through Ashbee's comments in his 1993 paper, I think his point about the Close Roll slightings having been inflicted on round barrows, not long barrows, is worth including in the discussion in the article. I haven't looked at the papers Ashbee cites on that point; it might be interesting to see how definite that distinction is, but Ashbee is quite clear on the point and I think it strengthens his argument to include it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can certainly reverse the order that we present the two arguments, that isn't a problem. I'm not so sure whether it's worth bringing in a distinction between round barrows and long barrows here. The distinction of these different monument types is a largely 20th century phenomenon, based upon developments in archaeological classification. I don't think it had much value before this period, particularly pre-19th century. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A large number of surface finds were found: can we avoid the "find"/"found" repetition?
  • Certainly. "found" can easily be replaced by "discovered" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good enough, so struck, but another option would be "The field, and a quarry 30 metres (100 feet) to the east, between them yielded a large number of surface finds"; up to you if you like that version. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the latter part of the 1950s, with plans afoot to build a house adjacent to Chestnuts Long Barrow, the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments initiated excavation of the site. Over five weeks in August and September 1957, the barrow was excavated under the directorship of John Alexander. The excavation was initiated and funded by Boyle, with the support of the Inspectorate, and largely carried out by volunteers. Quite a bit of repetition here. Can we do something like this: "In the latter part of the 1950s, with plans afoot to build a house adjacent to Chestnuts Long Barrow, the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments initiated an excavation of the site under the directorship of John Alexander. The excavation, which lasted five weeks in August and September 1957, was initiated and funded by Boyle, with the support of the Inspectorate, and largely carried out by volunteers."?
  • However, that paragraph says both that the dig was initiated by the Inspectorate and by Boyle; that needs to be clarified.
  • I have tried to do so in the prose, which no longer says that Boyle "initiated" it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following excavation, the fallen sarsen megaliths were re-erected in their original sockets, allowing for the restoration of part of the chamber and façade: not quite true, surely? He did not re-erect any façade stones, did he?
  • Ashbee does specify that part of the façade was also restored, although your point has encouraged me to consider this further. I've tried looking at the photographs of the site to determine what stones might have been part of the façade. There are certainly several stones that branch off to the sides of the chamber, which presumably are façade stones. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I was mis-remembering. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- That's it for a first pass. Generally I think everything is here but some tweaks are needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: - many thanks for spending so much time carefully reading through this article. You've raised some important points and the article quality has been improved because of them. I think that I've responded to every one of your queries; if there is anything you'd like to offer a counter-response to then please do feel free to do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of responses above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Midnightblueowl, just checking that you've noticed there are a couple of outstanding points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie thanks for your message. Sorry for the delay. Will get onto these shortly. I had hoped to answer them late last week but real life got in the way. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I do think the picture on p. 340 of Ashbee (2000) is better than Alexander's plate I, and I think it would improve the article to use it, but I'm not going to withhold support over that. Re the round barrows vs. long barrows point Ashbee makes, I take your point that this was a distinction not made by archaeologists till centuries after the time of the destructive behaviour, but Ashbee's opinion is pretty definite on the point and I think the article would benefit from including it. But it's a point on which reasonable people can disagree, so I'm going to go ahead and support. Are you planning a featured topic? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Mike, the c.1925 image from Ashbee is the clearer of the two. I've made the switch. Regarding a featured topic, I hadn't given it any thought, to tell the truth. I've never created a featured topic before. There are still about four articles on the Medway Megaliths which are not yet FAs (of those, two are GAs, while the other two still need quite a bit of work). Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review.

  • The sources are all reliable.
  • I've done some spotchecking as part of the content review above and found nothing to be concerned about.
  • I can't speak to comprehensiveness, but a couple of searches conducted while doing the content review turned up nothing further of note.
  • As far as formatting goes, the only thing I can spot is that there's no ISBN on Philp & Dutto; you do have ISBNs on other books so we should be consistent.
  • Strangely, I don't think that the Philp and Dutto has an ISBN. I just checked the copy in my possession and there is no ISBN listed on the back cover. The amazon.co.uk entry does not list an ISBN either. It may be that because it was printed by a small press (the Kent Archaeological Trust) they never gave it one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Colebrooke, you give 1773 as the date, but it appears you're citing a 20th century printing of it. Is there any way to indicate this in the citation?
  • I may be in error here, but I thought that I was citing a digitisation of the original 18th century printing? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have access, so you may be right -- when I posted that I checked to see how old Archaeologica was and thought it didn't go back to 1773. If this is a digitization of a 1773 journal, that's fine -- my mistake. I interpreted it as a reprint of the original source in a later journal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Harris, I'm guessing your citation is really to Ashbee; I don't think it's a good idea to cite a book you haven't seen, even on the authority of a reliable source. I've handled this a couple of different ways; my preferred way is to do a note, saying something like "Ashbee 1993, quoting Harris's 'History of Kent'", leaving Harris in the bibliography. I think with Harvard refs that would cause an error to show up since there wouldn't be a link. Any method that shows what was actually consulted and what was only quoted in the consulted source would work.
  • I'd hoped to access a copy of Harris' volume but unfortunately have not been able to. Perhaps I should just remove the Harris reference altogether? Do you think that would be best? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, that's probably the simplest way out. I do think the current situation is untenable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl, I've been reading some of the articles in the Medway Megaliths group. There's a lot of overlap between the different articles on the Medway Megaliths group. I've done this myself -- see Super Science Stories and Astonishing Stories, for example, which share most of the "Publication history" section and a little of the "Contents and reception" section -- but here it's half a dozen articles, and the ratio of text to the overall article is quite high. I think it would be better to strip some of the detail from this section and do a more summary-style approach. Duplication of a limited amount of information is OK, but if a reader starts with the summary article I don't think they'd expect to read the same pageful of text half-a-dozen times as they go through the individual articles in the group. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

@Mike Christie: - given your above comment, what is your feeling on this article's readiness for promotion? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth:The relevant FAC criterion would be 4: it "...uses summary style" but normally that's invoked to say that the parent article should move material down to child articles. Here it's the other way around; I feel too much has been moved here. I don't think I can recall another FAC for which this has been raised as an issue. However, I'd be OK with it being promoted because there's nothing incorrect here; I think it's an editorial decision about the appropriate level of summarization for a group of related articles. I wouldn't do it this way myself, but I don't think it's actually wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:08, 28 March 2020 (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/Chestnuts_Long_Barrow/archive1&oldid=948068116"