Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Trundle/archive1

The Trundle

The Trundle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/The Trundle/archive1

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about an archaeological site in Sussex that contains an Iron Age hillfort and a Neolithic causewayed enclosure. Causewayed enclosures were new to archaeology in the 1920s and it was one of the first to be found and excavated, and also one of the first archaeological sites to be identified by aerial photographs, now a standard procedure. This is the third causewayed enclosure site I've brought to FAC; the others, for comparison, are Knap Hill and Whitehawk Camp. Thanks are due to Dudley Miles, who provided a thorough talk page review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text

  Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Open_Street_Map_Chichester_District.png: is there a link to the OSM source, and is the uploader the sole contributor at that source?

  No idea -- this image predates my involvement with the article. The uploader hasn't been active in eight years. I've removed the map. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:The_Trundle_aerial_photo_1925.jpg: what does the source say about the provenance of this image?

  Crown copyright. See here for a page image; it's the first page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:St_Roc's_Hill_1723_from_William_Stukeley's_Itinerarium_Curiosum.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:St_Roche's_Hill_Sussex_by_T_King_from_William_Hayley_Mason_Goodwood_1839.jpg

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:The_Trundle_annotated_1928_and_1930_dig.jpg: can the caption be expanded to provide more detail on what the different abbreviations refer to? Ditto File:The_Trundle_east_gate_1930_excavations_annotated.jpg.

  The first one does try to do that; is there anything you think it's missing? For the east gate, the abbreviations are discussed in the text. I could add "see text for an explanation of the abbreviations" if that would address the issue; I guess I assumed that a reader would look to the text for explanations. I don't think it would be worth trying to put all the information in the caption -- it would be long enough to look quite ungainly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  TD and CI are mentioned, but what are they? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Added an explanation of CI through CIV to the caption. I don't see a TD -- do you mean TT? TT is described in the caption. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks; replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Leaning support from Richard Nevell

I'm very exited to see this article at FAC; Mike's edits have been cropping up on my watchlist and it's been great to see the article improve so much. I hope to find time read the article properly, but on the subject of the sourcing the article looks to be using the best available sources. I do have one (trivial) question at this stage. Is there a particular reason Eliot Cecil Curwen's name is written as E. C. Curwen in the body of the article whereas other archaeologists and historians are given their full names rather than initials (eg: Hadrian Allcroft, Owen Bedwin, Stuart Piggott)? Richard Nevell (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• I gather his father’s name was also Eliot, and I would guess that’s why he was nearly always “E.C. Curwen” when publishing articles. I figured it was better to give his name as he would give it professionally. I think, but I’m not certain, that he was known as Cecil, not Eliot, so I would want to make it “E. Cecil Curwin” if we do change it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  It didn't help matters that Eliot and Eliot Cecil both conducted fieldwork together and wrote about it! E. C. Curwen's papers in the Sussex Archaeological Collections on the work at the Trundle credit him as E. Cecil Curwen. In case this article is changed in this article that might be the way to do it, as you suggested, but I can't say I'm fussed either way, I was just curious! Richard Nevell (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  I missed that; I thought he was E.C. in the SAC articles. I’m not near my books at the moment but will check this evening and will make the change then. I’ll like to stub an article on E.C.; I believe there’s an obit of him in one of the archaeology journals but have not laid my hands on it yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done; thanks for the heads up on that! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Richard, just checking to see if you had any plans to come back to review this -- it would be great to get a review from someone with a professional background in archaeology. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I've finally found the time the article deserves. The article made a good first impression, and it certainly stands up to scrutiny. It addresses the topic very well, giving a good level of detail about the site and providing context. The Trundle has a complex history and it is very well handled. I like the way the evolving interpretations of the site and later revisions are handled throughout. This approach works very well. The use of illustrations is excellent, with the aerial photographs and marked up images. The DTM image was added midway through based on openly licensed data. I don't know if that was the result of Mike' efforts or just very good timing from the uploader, but it definitely enhances the article.

Below I have made some suggestions for adjusting the content. The comments are arranged by section, and most are a slight change in emphasis. There are a couple of sources (Reynolds 2009 and Hamilton & Manley 2001) which might be worth checking for relevant information. I can't access the useful bits of the Reynolds book, and I've only skimmed Hamilton & Manley but it does mention the Trundle a few times.

Lead

• Move date the date the fort was in use into the first paragraph?

  Currently the dates for both the hillfort ("about 500 BC to 100 BC") and the causewayed enclosure ("probably constructed no earlier than the mid-fourth millennium BC") are in the second paragraph of the lead; the dates in the lead are intended to give the reader the rough time period we're talking about. Are you thinking that something similar to help readers with "Iron Age" would be good? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Pretty much, it only stands out because there's a date range for the causewayed enclosure in the first paragraph but not the hillfort. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Had a go at this. I was hesitant to put too much in the lead that was background information as opposed to information directly relating to the Trundle itself, but I think this works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• the hillfort is still a substantial earthwork: would it be useful to mention briefly that that banks would have been topped by timber palisades and there would have been structures inside? I’m happy to leave it to your discretion how much detail to include in the lead.

  I left this sort of thing out because the hillfort itself has had very little investigation. I don't recall one of my sources saying it would have had palisades, but I don't have a good general reference for the Iron Age to hand -- I've got a copy of Cunliffe's Iron Age Communities on order, but it's been delayed. Do you have a source I could use for anything like this? I would have to add it in the body too, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  On reflection, I'd leave out mention of a palisade. As you say, there hasn't been enough investigation at the hillfort to demonstrate that, and checking Hillforts: Britain, Ireland and the Nearer Continent (2019) a palisade was one of a range of options when enclosing a hillfort. It does appear to be common, but I over-generalised. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  The generalisation is also found in a Historic England document ("Ramparts sometimes had timber frames and were originally topped with timber palisades") but I think it still makes sense to leave that out, or if it is mentioned it could be in the body of the article and phrased in general terms, rather than the lead. The discovery of house platforms by the 1995 survey might still be worth alluding to in the lead. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Indicate what is meant by These early digs established a date of about 500 BC to 100 BC for the hillfort, specifically whether this is the foundation of the site or the period of its use.

  I made it "established a construction date"; does that do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  It certainly does. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• I’d be tempted to add a sentence in the lead noting that the site was occasionally used as a meeting place in the post-medieval period, but without going into detail. It wouldn’t be necessary, for example to list the militia and masonic meetings.

  Good idea; added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Background

• The causeways are difficult to explain in military terms I don’t think it will be obvious to the reader why they would be interpreted as military sites. Perhaps a slight change of emphasis to something along the lines of “Early interpretations suggested a military role, though the sites were difficult to explain”? I’m sure there’s a better way of phrasing it, but I assume what’s meant is that archaeologists of the time assumed they were military sites, but were puzzled as to how they worked.

  See next response. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  The rewording certainly helps, but my thinking is more along the lines of historiography. Why is the starting point assessing the site in military terms? That might be a difficult one to find discussions for. From my admittedly limited knowledge of the history of archaeology, a quite a few people involved in early excavations had a military background which influenced their thinking. If there isn't something which addresses the historiography of causewayed enclosures, then it's not a point that can be made in the article, but I thought I'd suggest it in case something is possible. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  I see -- yes, would be interesting but I don't recall seeing anything like that in the early sources. The question is first raised by Maud Cunnington in regard to Knap Hill; she presumably had no military background but on the other hand would have read works by people like Augustus Pitt Rivers. I'll keep an eye out but I have nothing to hand. That would also be an interesting area to cover in the overall causewayed enclosure article, which I'd like to get to one day. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• The causeways are difficult to explain in military terms They were constructed in a short time: does this mean individual causewayed enclosures were built quickly, or that the phenomenon itself happened within a relatively short time frame? The latterformer seems to be what is meant, but a slight change of wording could make it clearer.

  I've tried a rewording that I hope addresses both these points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, I just realised I copied the wrong bit! I've added the bit of text I meant to refer to above. I tied myself in a know with this one. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hillforts began to appear in Britain early in the Iron Age. That certainly when they became more common, but the earliest examples date from the Late Bronze Age. See Hamilton, Sue; Manley, John (2001). "Hillforts, monumentality and place: a chronological and topographic review of first millennium BC hillforts of south-east England". European Journal of Archaeology. 4 (1): 7–42. doi:10.1179/eja.2001.4.1.7. ISSN 1461-9571.

  I'd like to update the statement in the article but I don't have access to that source. Can I make it "Hillforts began to appear in Britain late in the Bronze Age, in the late second millennium BC" and cite that paper? What page range should I cite if so? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for sending that paper; I've now updated the wording in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Site and interpretation

• Excellent use of the aerial photo. I think it would be useful to expand the caption to indicate to the reader which bit is the hillfort and which is the causewayed enclosure. It’s clear from the accompanying paragraphs, but since this draws the eye it would be worthwhile making it easy to understand independently.

  Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• The ditches enclose an area of about 5.66 ha This might be a push, but do you have any way to give context? Does this make this one of the bigger hillforts in Sussex (or a given region) or is it about average?

  I recall some discussion of area but I think it was only for the biggest sites. I'll have to defer this and look through my references; I'll get back to you on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Oswald's The Creation of Monuments has a section on the area of causewayed enclosures (pp. 72-75.). They divide them into small, medium and large, but it's a fairly tentative division, and unfortunately the Trundle lies right on the boundary between medium (up to 5.5 ha) and large (6 ha and over) so I would hesitate to unequivocally assign it to "medium sized". I can send you copies of the pages if you'd like to see the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'd be curious to see the discussion if you have time to send the pages over (there's certainly no rush). Richard Nevell (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've emailed them -- let me know if you see something there that we could use. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Antiquarian and archaeological investigations

• I think it would be worth adding that the Duke of Richmond owned the land and gave permission to E.C. Curwen to dig. (Curwen 1929, 35). I think it’s also interesting that one labourer was hired to do the work and they also worked with Curwen on his excavations at the Caburn. Whether that’s worth including is another matter, but I’d be tempted.

  I've now mentioned the Duke. I agree it would be nice to mention the labourer but I don't see how to do it; I wonder if there are historiographic articles on the social relations of the early archaeologists, so many of whom were gentlemen amateurs. I did notice a while ago that Curwen frequently used Robert Gurd to draw his plans and sketch the pottery, and was able to stub an article on him. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• I’m a little disappointed that the sources don’t discuss the significance of the deliberate infilling of ditches, but we have to work with the limitations of the source!

  I give Curwen's opinion that it was the Iron Age builders who did that, in order to flatten the ground within the hillfort -- or do you mean further discussion beyond that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  I was very much thinking with my hat on as someone who studies destruction and the motivations, eg: to reuse the area for agriculture/while building the hillfort; ritual 'closing' of the site, etc. Just a general interest on my part, not something actionable! Richard Nevell (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• When discussing Pit 2 and its purpose (both pits formed an integral part of the scheme of defence of the two entrances) a recent paper in The Archaeological Journal (Pope, Rachel; Mason, Richard; Hamilton, Derek; Rule, Eddie; Swogger, John (2020-07-02). "Hillfort gate-mechanisms: a contextual, architectural reassessment of Eddisbury, Hembury, and Cadbury hillforts". Archaeological Journal. 177 (2): 339–407. doi:10.1080/00665983.2019.1711301. ISSN 0066-5983.) provides an important counterpoint, essentially shifting the interpretation from defence to agriculture.

  I see they argue that Hembury's entranceways were designed for animal funnelling, but as far as I can see the only relevant reference to the Trundle is on p. 381, where they suggest that the "great gate" at the Trundle may have needed an iron pivot. I've added a mention of that (in the section on Curwen's second dig, since that's where he talks about the odd nature of the huge postholes). Re agricultural use, I added something to the background section, since there's no explicit discussion of this in the individual excavation reports and Pope doesn't include the Trundle in the discussion of entrances designed to funnel animals. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Which researchers/institutions were involved in the Gathering Time project?

  Not sure what you're asking for here -- the three authors are listed in the citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  With earlier work, the names of those involved was prominent in the text (Curwen, Bedwin & Aldsworth, Oswald etc) but with Gathering Time the absence was a notable contrast. My thinking is that it would be good to add them in so that the people involved are given similar prominence, or if there are too many key figures (three is probably the upper limit) give the institutions involved. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough; I've now credited them in the body of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• the body is likely to have been that of a criminal executed nearby, between 1000 AD and 1825 AD I recommend making it clear that this is Aldsworth’s suggestion. I can’t see what it says in the snippet, but the burial seems to be mentioned in Reynold’s book (Reynolds, Andrew (2009). Anglo-Saxon Deviant Burials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-954455-4.), so there may be other views about the age.

  I've clarified that this is Aldsworth's suggestion. I don't have Reynolds; do you think I need to look at that? Searching for "Trundle" in GBooks only finds that one mention, in the form of a citation, near the end of the book, which makes me doubt there was any discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  The Google snippet view does make it tricky. My hunch is that the Trundle is in the bibliography because Reynolds suggests the burial is early medieval, and that perhaps the OCR missed it earlier in the book or is incomplete. I've seem works where chunks are missing from the preview. But, based on the available info I'd say don't go out of your way to track it down as it's likely to be only a fleeting mention if at all. Maybe one to keep an eye on for the future, but certainly not a serious omission (if it even rises to one at all). Richard Nevell (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• I’d like to see the earthwork survey have its own section, rather than grouped under ‘other’, explaining the context (who/which organisations were involved, why it was carried out) and the main conclusions. The most important aspect seems to be the discovery of Scattered around the interior, traces of some fifteen possible house platforms (Oswald 1995, 14). That should be mentioned, regardless of whether there's a separate section as houses and implied domestic activity aren't mentioned elsewhere.

  I've added a mention of the house platforms -- that was a serious omission, I agree. Re splitting the earthwork survey: are you referring to the geophysical surveys? Or something else referenced in Oswald's 1995 review? The "other" section is already pretty short so I used it as a grab bag for everything not significant enough for its own section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  I was thinking that the 1995 work could be separated, leaving the rest (including the geophysical surveys) in the 'other' section. The new section could have a couple of sentences of extra detail, mentioning: it was part of a bigger project recording Neolithic sites; though its primary aim was to record the causewayed enclosure, the survey also included the hillfort as an integral part of the site; the identification of the house platforms as an important finding.

  On reflection, I think that could probably be distilled into another sentence, and rather than having two very short sections, it makes sense to keep it as one more substantial section. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Added a bit, and also realized I had not mentioned Oswald's note of three possible Roman building platforms, so I put that in the site section too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Preservation and presentation

• Isn’t it part of the South Downs National Park?
• It might be worth noting that public access is possible and there are several walking routes leading to the site.

  Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Once again, good job with this article, it's a very good handling of the topic. While there are more than a handful of points above, I consider them minor and I look forward to supporting the article. A fair few of the points are phrased as suggestions, so please do feel free to take or leave them. Over to you, and I hope the feedback helps. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful review! I've replied to some points above and will pick this up again tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Richard, I think I've now replied to every point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Richard -- added a couple more replies above on the remaining points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Well that's everything taken care of as far as I'm concerned. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• As Mike says, I have previously reviewed this first rate article. I have a few minor comments on re-reading it.
• The word "site" seems to be repeated rather often, including six times in the short second paragraph.

  It's a hard word to avoid! I've had a go at rewording that paragraph and one other where it was frequently used; is that better? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• " In a few cases enclosures that had already been built continued to be used as late as 3300 to 3200 BC." I am not sure you need "that had already been built".

  Agreed; reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "parliament". This is usually capitalised when referring to a particular parliament. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks again for the review, and for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Placeholder - need to sleep now but will look tomorrow (in several hours) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• A descriptor for E. Cecil Curwen? Ditto William Crawley, William Hayley Mason and O. G. S. Crawford.

  Added for Curwen and Crawford. Cawley's a politician and the text says he was speaking in Parliament, so I was hoping we could leave this to the reader to deduce. Mason was the librarian of the nearby Goodwood estate, according to the frontispiece of his book, but I don't think it adds anything to say who he was. Or I could put it in a footnote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

valid points Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• What's a foxhole?

  A hole dug for defensive military purposes. I've linked to our article on it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Pity we don't have a drone shot of the place...

  It is indeed! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Actually unless I am missing something, I don't get a sense of what is immediately around the site - is it in fields, a suburb or what?

  The sources I have don't describe the surroundings beyond saying that the racecourse is next to it. If you're curious, search Google Maps for "Goodwood Racecourse" and then look a little to the west and you'll see the distinctive shape of the ramparts. I don't think I can add much to the article without a source, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise looks good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

And for the support! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PM

G'day Mike, great article. A few comments:

Lead

• you could link aerial photography

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Body

• perhaps "an iron age hillfort"→"an Iron Age hillfort" and link Iron Age? Not sure what your approach is to linking in the lead and again at first mention in the body

  Done; I generally try to do exactly that, but am not always consistent about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• there is some tension between the description of causeway enclosures as being built "from shortly before 3700 BC until about 3300 BC" (is this just in the British Isles) and "from before 4000 BC in northern France, to shortly before 3000 BC in northern Germany, Denmark, and Poland. The enclosures in southern Britain continued to be built for at least 200 years (after when?), and in a few cases they continued to be used as late as 3300 to 3200 BC." perhaps it could be more clearly explained what period they were built in the southern British Isles?

  I'll have to look at this later this week -- I'm away from most of my sources at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've reorganized this a bit and I hope it's now clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• if Iron Age in linked at the beginning of the Body, then the link at the beginning of the third para of the Background should probably be dropped

  That one links specifically to the British Iron Age so I think it's worth keeping. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• perhaps "least four circular or partly concentric circular ditches"

  I'm not sure about this -- "partly" is intended to refer to shape of the ditches, since a spiral isn't really a circle, and since the shapes are not fully known. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• perhaps "Concentric with this is a second ditch that lies a short distance outside the innermost ditch"

  Done, with some associated rewording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "This part of the site" which part? The "further early earthworks"?

  The entire causewayed enclosure, at least in its original incarnation. Clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• link Gibbeting

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "were built during the World War II"

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• should neolithic have an initial capital? There are several instances of this.

  All should now be fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• consider moving the link to sherd to Glossary of archaeology#potsherd and link at first mention

  Much better link; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• For crouched burial suggest linking Burial#Body positioning

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• link phallus?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• link Rescue archaeology to rescue excavation

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "There was at one time a gibbet on the Trundle; it appears on an OS map in 1813, but had been removed by 1825." is partially redundant, I would describe the gibbet fully when first introduced, then just mention the gibbet in connection to the grave at this point

  Well spotted; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources (not a source review)

• a few sources could do with an ISSN or OCLC identifier to assist with verification

  Added the OCLCs to the books without ISBNs. I haven't added ISSNs to journals before; is there an online search that will find them, like worldcat for OCLC numbers? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Worldcat should provide the ISSNs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. There are a couple of sources with no ISSN still; these are archaeological reports issued at irregular intervals and I don't think any identifier exists for them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries as far as I am concerned. The source reviewer may wish to follow up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. All but one responded to above; I'll ping you when that one is done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Peacemaker67: last point now replied to above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Great stuff Mike. Supporting. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, as ever. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• What's the difference between FN1 and FN27?

  Now merged (one pre-dated my involvement with the article and I didn't notice they were identical). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  The "research records" part should be split into a work title parameter rather than as part of |title=. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  What's the parameter you have in mind? I looked through all the cite web params and didn't see anything that would work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  Could do |work=. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  I had tried to find that and was surprised to see that there is no "work=" param in the VE interface. I just tried again and realized after checking the {{cite web}} documentation that the parameter is called "website"; presumably "work" is an alias that would need to be tagged in some way to appear in VE. Anyway, done; and I deleted the publisher parameter (as suggested by its documentation) because it was redundant with the work param filled out. Pinging WhatamIdoing: am I right in thinking that searching for "work" in VE's cite web edit dialog ought to find the website parameter? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  If you're in the "Add more information" section, then yes: any parameter/alias defined in TemplateData on the template's /doc page should be searchable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. Turns out I already had "Name of the website" included but empty, so searching for "work", which I hadn't known was an alias, found nothing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN74 is missing author, and why include location here but not FN73?

  Author added; I took location out as I understand it's not needed for newspapers but can re-add for both if necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  No location is fine, but the same query now applies to retrieval date. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  So it does. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Missing full source details for Cunnington

  Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Fn30: does this source have chapters or any other means of identifying a location? (And what do we know about this publisher?)

  It has chapters in Google Books but unfortunately the search that finds the relevant text gives no information about the page it's found on. This is one of those annoying Gbooks that has no pagination. The original publisher was Robert Scott in 1920. I have been assuming that the modern edition is just a photographic reprint as is usually the case for this sort of thing, so it's the reliability of the original publisher that's the issue. I found this page which implies they published travel writing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Suggest expanding the citation to make it clear that this is a reprint. Does a GBooks link go directly to the page of interest? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  I tried putting "1920 edition, reprinted" in the "edition" field, but that comes out as "1920 edition, reprinted (ed.)", which isn't really right. I took out the cite template and formatted it manually; if you know of a way to do something like that in the cite book template please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like "Reprint of 1920" produces a reasonable output for that parameter? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  It does; done. Thank you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Check alphabetization of Sources

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Healy or Healey?

  Healy; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Piggott has an incorrect publisher name (I'm guessing this error came from Worldcat?)

  The OCLC record linked to says "Cambridge: University Press". The book itself says "Cambridge/At the University Press/1954" on the title page, and "Published by the syndics of the Cambridge University Press" at the top of the verso, with "Printed in Great Britain at the University Press, Cambridge" at the bottom. I thought about making this "Cambridge University Press", but of the three declarations only one says that, so I decided to go with "University Press". Were you likewise thinking it should say "Cambridge University Press"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  OK, changed to "Cambridge University Press". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Wedgwood: publisher doesn't match information at that OCLC.

  Not sure what to do about this, except perhaps to remove the OCLC. The edition I have was "especially created in 1997 for Book-of-the-Month Club by arrangement with Deborah Owen Ltd". I couldn't find an exact match so I picked the one that I knew was a book club reprint as the best guess. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  How sure are we that a different reprint will have eg the same pagination? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Not. I've removed the OCLC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

For these last two I'll have to wait till later this week when I'm back with my books. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikki: Now replied to everything above, though with at least one question. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Support on Criterion 1a. I have been following this FAC since it's nomination. I am sorry I have nothing to add but praise.Graham Beards (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)