Talk:Stoney Littleton Long Barrow: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:24, 15 February 2015

Stoney Littleton Long Barrow has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 15, 2015.

Somerset B‑class Low‑importance

	Somerset portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Megalith

I've created a new template for megalithic sites, Template:Megalith, as used on Pikestones and Round Loaf. Some instructions on the template talk page, to show how to use it. Cheers! --PopUpPirate 13:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stoney Littleton Long Barrow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dudley Miles (talk · contribs) 12:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this one. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"was scheduled as an ancient monument in 1882." I checked this as I thought it must be and error but I was wrong. According to Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1882 it was one of the 26 English monuments listed in the original Act. Worth mentioning?

Thank you I was not aware of that. Now added.— Rod ^talk 16:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The chambered long barrow was constructed during the Neolithic" This confused me as I thought at first you meant this barrow. I think "Chambered long barrows were constructed during the Neolithic" would be clearer.

Changed.— Rod ^talk 16:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The site was restored in 1858 by Mr T. R. Joliffe." The source says the mound, which is clearer. Also how do you know Joliffe was male? The source does not say so.

His first names were Thomas Robert so I made an assumption that he was male. In his writing he is always known as "T.R." but I can add the full names if that would be helpful?— Rod ^talk 16:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Thomas Joliffe. The old rule was that you put Mr when someone was alive, and I once read an academic remark that he had found out about a colleague's death when he saw him referred to without the Mr. That rule has probably gone by the wayside but Mr still sounds a bit stilted to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a rule I've heard of, but it was the style in academic journals etc only to use initials until fairly recently. (I have also heard discussion about reintroducing the format as a way of addressing gener bias in publications). Thomas added.— Rod ^talk 18:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Some of the artefacts from the excavations are in the Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery." According to Pastscape bones as well but 'History and Research says they have been lost. Not sure how to deal with this unless you can find out from the museum.

They are not included in the part of their collection accessible online.— Rod ^talk 16:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could wikilink Timothy Darvill to shown he is an RS source. Also you are inconsistent Tim or Timothy.

Done. It says Tim here and Timothy here, but I agree it is the same person and have made it consistent.— Rod ^talk 16:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know 'Stones of England' is RS? Also Megalithic Portal which seems to be composed (like Wikipedia) of contributions by anonymous contributors.

Both replaced/removed.— Rod ^talk 16:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer the last photo of the interior on the right as where it is on the left pushes the References section over which looks ugly.

Moved.— Rod ^talk 16:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a paragraph on location and access.

I've added a short paragraph, but I couldn't think of or find much - what else do you think would be useful?— Rod ^talk 17:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"via a stile a footpath from the south." sounds ungrammatical and vague to me. I would add by a footpath from a car park at Stoney Littleton Farm as in the Digital Digging site. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My error - grammar corrected & car park added.— Rod ^talk 18:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your usual high standard. I will put it on hold now. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Do you think your concerns have been addressed?— Rod ^talk 17:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed it now. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{GA|18:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)|topic=World history|page=1}}
-{{GA nominee|15:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)|nominator=&mdash; [[User:Rodw|Rod]] <sup>[[User talk:Rodw|talk]]</sup>|page=1|subtopic=World history|status=onhold|note=}}
 {{WikiProject Somerset|class=B|importance=Low}}
 {{WikiProject Historic Sites|class=B|importance=Low}}