Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of scheduled monuments in Sedgemoor/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 07:54, 25 March 2015 [1].

List of scheduled monuments in Sedgemoor[edit]

List of scheduled monuments in Sedgemoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): — Rod talk 21:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fifth list (of seven) of the Scheduled monuments in Somerset. The 79 items in the list range in age from the Neolithic to World War II. It follows the format of the others, but incorporates the lessons from the previous nominations.— Rod talk 21:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary now to add the image towards the end in the tables? I think I prefer the images near the left side in first or second column like I've seen in Peter I. Vardy's. Also, why are some red links and others not?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The position of the image is set by Template:EH listed building header and Template:EH listed building row which is used on all the Somerset lists of scheduled monuments. There are a few redlinks for sites I think have a reasonable chance of an article (and I will create a few more of these) other titles are black as it is unlikely they will ever be notable (or have enough sources) to write an article about them - this was advised in one of the previous nominations within this set.— Rod talk 21:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Minor comment on BC/BCE usage – we should be consistent using one or other. Also spacing of BC/AD should be consistent – using a non-breaking space to keep the year and prefix together. Keith D (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tried to standardise on B.C. - have I missed any?— Rod talk 21:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have caught the one I saw. Keith D (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi Rod, good work. Can I just check that this is complete. I've copied the table into Excel and it's counting 78 rows excluding the header. A search at English Heritage (Where = Somerset, SedgemoorWhat = Heritage Asset Type/s (Scheduling)) gives 79 results. I may be missing something, but I thought I'd ask. Kind regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Thank you. It appears I missed "Round barrows 600yds (550m) NW of Longbottom Farm" (1006223). I don't know how that happened, but it appears to be two old Pastcape records combined (referenced in the list). Could I ask a big favour (only sort of related to this nomination). I can't quite work out how you loaded the wikitable into excel so could you run the same test on List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset and List of scheduled monuments in Mendip which are by far the largest of the set (and therefore potentially more prone to this error).?— Rod talk 14:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I have repeated this for the two you've mentioned and double checked the results: the Wikipedia tables contain 182 rows in West Somerset (compared to the 202 I get on EH), and 228 in Mendip (compared to the 234 I get on EH). I discovered, while working on my GCVO lists that, if one can highlight the whole table on Wikipedia, copy it and then paste it into Excel (it should be the default if you press Ctrl+V, but can also be done by right-clicking and going "Keep Source Formatting" under "Paste Options" or "Paste Special"). I am using Excel 2013, so I can't say if this will work with earlier versions, but it may well do. Tables can also be copied from Excel and pasted in Wikipedia using Visual Editor, which can work surprisingly well (although it cannot keep formatting). If you need any other lists checking, then I'd be happy to go over them. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, I guess it's better to know now though. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Thanks, I will try the list to excel trick at some point but, in the meantime, will go searching for the missing entries before bringing the lists anywhere near FLC.— Rod talk 18:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments from Noswall59
Lead: Okay, the second and third paragraphs are well written and summarise the article well. I have a few comments regarding the first:
  • "historically largely marsh", should this be "marshland"? I don't know, but this reads oddly to me.
  • Do we need to know about King's Sedgemoor and West Sedgemoor? I don't see them mentioned in the article.
  • What are the Somerset Levels and Moors? (I know what they are, but perhaps just something to explain their importance or relevance to this article).
  • "Historically the area was known as the site of the Battle of Sedgemoor." I am not sure that this is relevant, but I don't think you need to start with "Historically"; how about "Westonzoyland, a village in the south of the district, was the site of the Battle of Sedgemoor (1685), the final battle of the Monmouth Rebellion." Although, this still feels out of place. Perhaps you could give very brief account of Sedgemoor's history and include it there.
Table: I am happy that it's complete, illustrated where possible and meets the standards of previous articles in this series. Providing no one else turns up any issues, I am happy with it.
References: seem fine to me.
Stability: no problems here.
I look forward to hearing your responses to my comments above. Once again, good work, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I've copied half a paragraph from Somerset Levels explaining the history of the area and removed the irrelevant information from the first paragraph of the lead. Does this explain the context more fully?— Rod talk 15:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although this new information will need to be cited. Also, you only need one "low-lying" - either Sedgemoor is part of the low-lying Levels, or Sedgemoor is a low-lying part of the levels. Either suffices in describing Sedgemoor itself and avoids repetition. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Citations added & 2nd "low lying removed.— Rod talk 18:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been looking through some of the sources and I can't see where it says that "Motte with two baileys immediately east of Bristol Road, Down End" dates to c. 1100.
  • According to our article on Down End Castle this is from recent work cited to Prior 2006 (which I don't have a copy of). The NHLE entry was last updated in 2000 so may not take this into account. I have added prior to the citations.— Rod talk 19:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A look at "Sections of the Sweet Track..." show that "Dendrochronological work shows that the timbers for the Sweet Track were felled in the winter/spring of 3807/6 BC and that the track was probably built in one episode soon afterwards. The felling date for the timbers for the Post Track is 3838 BC, some 30 years earlier. The radiocarbon dates for the Sweet Track gave a range of between 4050-3800 BC."
  • Are you saying that because this site include both tracks the date given should be 3838 - 3806 BC, or similar?— Rod talk 19:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "Brick and tile kiln west of East Quay", the source states that the kiln was founded in 1858.
  • There used to be six kilns at the site, only one survives. The sources I've seen do not confirm that the survivor was the first built (1858) although I agree the first one was. Therefore I am nervous about being to specific with the date of this one.— Rod talk 19:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the church cross at St Mary's, Nether Stowey, the source states 14th century.
Dudley seems to be working his way through these, so I will stop there for now. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Okay, I am declaring my support for this article. Another excellent list. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias
;Comments from Harrias talk
  • The distances/areas are generally metric (imperial), but at least one is imperial (metric). Try to remain consistent. ("Chapel E of Adscombe Farm", "Multi-period site on Brean Down", "Wimblestone standing stone" and "World War II anti-aircraft rocket battery and bombing decoy control building 265 m north east of Ashridge Farm" are imp (met))
  • I've flipped most of these - but remember some discussions (somewhere) about not converting "3 inch guns" as this is a proper name rather than a descriptive measurement.— Rod talk 10:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, the Brent Knoll entry has "1.6 hectares (16,000 m2)", which isn't the most useful conversion, while most other entries have "X hectares (Y acres)"
  • Changed
  • Gough's Old Cave: should "12.5000 years ago" be "12,500 years ago"? Harrias talk 10:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed. Thanks for the comments.— Rod talk 10:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wimblestone standing stone should be "A 1.5-metre (5 ft) high stone slab." rather than "A 1.5 metres (5 ft) high stone slab."
  • Support – another wonderful piece of work. Harrias talk 18:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "A Palaeolithic flint tool found in West Sedgemoor is the earliest indication of human presence in the area." I find this irritatingly vague. How old and which species of human? The source is RS so it presumably provided details. I would expand or leave out.
  • I don't have the book cited but the arguments about whether this was naturally occuring or the result of human activity is explored in this source (p 12) but doesn't give specific dates or human species - I'm happy to take this out if needed as there does not seem to be agreement among researchers about it.— Rod talk 20:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dating from the 3800s BC." Perhaps dating to the 3800s BC?
  • Glastonbury Lake Village. You need to say Iron Age - you are jumping from 3800 BC without explanation.
  • Added, however I'm now thinking about this as Glastonbury Lake Village will appear in List of scheduled monuments in Mendip as it falls within that local authority area, however the site is on the Levels.— Rod talk 20:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lake villages" Why is Lake capitalised? Also I would define lake village. Not sure whether you can link to Crannog, which is supposed to be Scottish and Irish, although it appears to mean the same thing.
  • Capitalisation changed (except where part of proper name). I'm not sure of a definition of Lake Village which is any different from Crannog.
  • "a string of settlements were set up along the Polden Hills." A pedantic point but you say above that Sedgemoor is south of the Polden Hills so are the settlements in the area?
  • "Some of the oldest are Neolithic" Why 'Some of'?
  • "Some of" removed.— Rod talk 20:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More recent sites include several motte-and-bailey castles and church or village crosses which date from the Middle Ages." A bit clumsy. I would say "Medieval sites include several motte-and-bailey castles and church or village crosses."
  • Changed, however I thought the wp preferred term is Middle Ages rather than medieval.— Rod talk 20:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Originally Athelney was a small island in swampland." Well it is a matter of taste, but I think that the fact that Athelney is where Alfred hid from the Vikings before coming out and defeating them at the Battle of Edington is worth mentioning.
  • Sources reporting this (eg this) often have caveats such as "believed to be" or "reportedly" and although there is good eveidence he satyed at Athelney this may not have been immediately before the battle.— Rod talk 20:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there is any doubt. It is stated as fact in Abels' biography of Alfred. If you look at the source again the doubt is whether he built a fortress while he was there. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "demolished by John Harewell in the 1380s." I think it would be clearer and more interesting to say by the Bishop of Bath and Wells.
  • Some bowl barrows are dated Neolithic to Bronze Age, which is vague. Looking at the source for 'Bowl barrow 300 m north east of Tyning's Farm', this is in the general information about bowl barrows. The description of the site says it is Bronze Age. This may apply to other barrows.
  • I've been through all those dated Neolithic to Bronze Age and changed to Bronze Age where the NHLE source supports this.— Rod talk 13:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chapel E of Adscombe Farm" Above you have "north west of Coppice Gate" - spelled out and not capitalised. I take it this is copying the source but I would correct it.
  • As discussed above (in collapsed comments from Harrias) I've kept with the (sometimes strange) titles from English Heritage in the NHLE to help searching. Their data sheets have been developed over many years (and they don't seem to have a MOS) so don't have a consistent style. In an attempt for consistency across all 7 Somerset lists I've not changed the capitalisation etc.— Rod talk 13:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is possibly the site of Cynwit Castle" This is from a source about Cannington Camp. As a statement about Cynwit Castle it sounds odd! All my sources say that battle site was in Devonshire. I would delete.
  • Gough's Cave. Given as Palaeolithic, but the only date given is 7150BC which is Neolithic. The source is a dead link. There should be plenty of sources as it is an important Upper Paleolithic Magdalenian site. According to Pettit and White, The British Palaeolithic, p. 440, it has by far the largest number of "lithic items" of any British Magdalenian site, c 2200 including 550 retouched tools.
  • I've added a skull cup from 14,700 B.C. + ref. The fact it is included in Pettit and White's book supports the Palaeolithic claim, but I don't have a copy of that book.— Rod talk 09:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dating from approximately 12,5000 years ago." presumably 12,500.
    • I have looked out of curiosity at Gough's Cave in the Upper Palaeolithic and I am confused. Pettit and White, in their authoritative 2012 survey, say the finds were in Gough's Cave, Sun Hole and Soldier's Hole and do not mention Old Gough's Cave or Great Oone's Hole. They mention the 14,700 years BP date for the skull cap, and suggest that all the finds are around that date, apart from a few flints which may date to 13-14 k BP. This is very different from horse bone dating to 12,500 years BP, which must be wrong as it is in the Younger Dryas Ice Age, and no evidence has been found of human occupation then. However, as the date comes from an RS I am not sure what you can do about it. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found out why the Goughs Old Cave date looks wrong. EH gave an "uncalibrated" C14 date. This means that they gave the raw date which had not been adjusted for variations in the amount of C14 in the atmosphere at different times. The true "calibrated" date would be around 2000 years earlier. See User talk:Mike Christie#C14 dating. I am not sure how you can deal with this but 12,500 BP is wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could always contact EH, under their minor corrections procedure. and they are generally appreciative and (eventually) change their data sheet. I have done this for the wrong number of spans in a bridge and a 20th century water tower they described as an 18th century dovecot - in both cases the data sheets were put right (after a while).— Rod talk 16:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As they put it - "c.12,500 radiocarbon years ago" - it is not wrong, just confusing for the non-expert. Leaving out the word "radiocarbon" in the article makes the date wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - typo fixed.— Rod talk 21:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great Oone's Hole. "from which flint artefacts from the Palaeolithic have been receovered." I would say Late Upper Palaeolithic as in the source. (Presumably Magdalenian as in the previous two comments). Also typo.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Longbottom Farm earthwork. "Between the Prehistoric and Medieval periods" - this could mean renewed at various times. I would prefer "unknown" which is what the source seems to basically say.
  • "Earthworks from a bank and ditch which may have marked the Compton Bishop estate" - should be "the boundary of..."
  • "boundary of" added.— Rod talk 08:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roman settlement site, Anglo-Saxon and Norman royal palace, and St Columbanus' Chapel. Why is this only designated Anglo-Saxon? Acccording to EH it also has "extensive area of Roman occupation including buildings whose foundations survive close to the modern ground surface".
  • Soldier's Hole, Cheddar Gorge. Another site just described as palaeolithic. Palaeolithic is a meaningless term as it covers anything from primitive homo 2.6 million years ago, barely more advanced than apes, to modern humans 10,000 years ago. Soldier's Hole is a Late Upper Palaeolithic site which should have a more extended description.
  • Sections of the Sweet Track and Post Track, 650 m east of Canada Farm. Date of 3807 or 3806 BC must be dendrochronological. This is worth mentioning.
  • "Two pieces of a timber trackway identified when water levels found as the site is waterlogged or under water normally." This does not make sense. Presumably you mean that the trackway was exposed by an unusually low water level.
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_list_candidates/List_of_scheduled_monuments_in_Sedgemoor/archive1&oldid=655074927"