Jump to content

Talk:Cadbury Castle, Somerset/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 13:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

  • I found the structure of the article a little strange. It starts off with some historical background on hillforts around 1,000 BC - fair enough. We then get a description of the site in the modern day - OK, although this does jar a bit with with 1,000 BC section. The article then moves to the 19th and 20th centuries for a description of the excavations, before going back to the pre-1,000 BC period. This began to get confusing, with the history being presented somewhat out of sequence in the subsequent Prehistoric Occupation section as well.
  • The prehistory is then presented, not as a sequential history, but in slightly odd excavation language - the first sentence goes "The earliest settlement was represented by pits and post holes dated with Neolithic pottery and flints." - well, that's what is left of the settlement during the relevant modern excavation, but as a reader, what I want to know is what the earliest settlement was originally, and when it was built. Could this be expressed as "The earliest known settlement on the site was constructed in the Neolithic Period (dates)... etc."
  • We then move from the Neolithic, through the Bronze Age and the whole of the Iron back, cut back to 400 BC, and the construction of the hillfort (which seems at odds with the decision to have the background section discussing the 1,000 BC period), through to AD 43 and the Romans, and then back to the pre-800 BC Bronze Age period in the next paragraph, before cutting back to AD 43 in the next para.
  • What I'm wondering is if it would be possible to restructure this so that it ran chronologically? e.g. "During the Neolithic Period... During the Bronze Age... During the early Iron Age before the castle was built... The building of the castle... The Roman invasion... The post-Roman period... Modern archaeology and the castle today"? I suspect it would make it much easier to follow.
  • There are also odd statements like "A report of the prehistoric and Roman activity identified by Alcock's excavations was published in 2000 which somewhat modified his earlier conclusions." - um, what earlier conclusions? I don't think the article has mentioned any yet. Starting some of the sentences with the dates of the publication (e.g. "In the year 2000, English Heritage published a monograph...") probably doesn't help either, as it draws the attention to that date, rather than the facts and dates about the castle that appear at the end of the sentence.
  • "later prehistoric and early historic phases of occupation at Cadbury Castle. Presenting finds from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age" - is the early Iron Age prehistoric or early historic? In the article, it is listed under prehistoric, but this suggests that it is historic (NB: I think historic is correct, btw). Hchc2009 (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to restructure the article to address your concerns. Could you take another look and see if you feel this is more appropriate?— Rod talk 10:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's now easier (IMHO) to read, although I still find the archaeological survey descriptions in the middle of the Bronze Age section distracting from the main narrative... Hchc2009 (talk)
  • "have carried out geophysical surveys, test pits gradiometry, electrical resistivity tomography,[10] ploughzone sampling,[11] test pits,[12] deeper excavations[13] and geographic information system (GIS) approaches." - aren't gradiometry and tomography forms of geophysical surveys?
  • This website gives some specific interpretation of the Neolithic encampment and some more background on the burial of the shield.
  • "There was significant activity at the site during the late third and fourth centuries, which may have included the construction of a Romano-British temple.[32] Havinden states that it was the site of vigorous resistance by the Durotriges and Dobunni to the second Augusta Legion under the command of Vespasian.[33]" It certainly wasn't the site of vigorous resistance to Vespasian in the 3rd/4th centuries, as he was a 1st century Emperor! I think this is misleadingly out of sequence... Hchc2009 (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Between 1010 and 1020, the hill was reoccupied for use as a temporary Saxon mint, standing in for that at Bruton." - what is the source for "temporary"? I ask as I can't see this in the available references. Similarly for Bruton; I've seen Ilchester, but not Bruton so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

  • There are lots of references to reports on the defences, and odd mentions of ramparts and gates, but I couldn't see any substantial description of what the hill fort's defences would have actually been in this article, which felt like a gap. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a Bronze Age or Iron Age specialist, so my apologies in advance for any errors here. I've read through the English Heritage "Cadbury Castle, Somerset: The Late Prehistoric and Early Historic Archaeology" report (it's 400 odd pages, so Ill admit to skim reading some of the reports!), some academic reviews of Leslie Alcock's "Cadbury Castle" and a variety of the web-based sources. On the basis of this, I'm not sure the article is fully capturing the main archaeological/historical points yet.
  • Pages 319-324 of the English Heritage report give a pretty clear description of the transition of the site from an unfortified agricultural settlement to the later hillfort, which itself changes in character and design several times. This includes how large parts of the castle site were used, what the interior would have looked like etc. Much of this doesn't come through in the article at the moment. A similar issue then emerges with the Roman and post-Roman century section, which miss some of what we know about the Roman use of the site, the context which Alcock gives to the refortification in the 5th-6th and 11th centuries and some of the details, including the curciform foundations and the probable name of the site in the 11th century.
  • My recommendation would to give the relevant sections a good scrub, at least against Alcock (or Tabor) and the English Heritage report, and double check that the article is describing what we know of the site during the relevant periods. What do you reckon? Hchc2009 (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a couple of bits from the Barrett (EH) source but have been delayed by having to finish stuff at work before going on leave & will now be away for a few days with no access. I hope to be able to do a bit more next week (before going away again) but apologise for the delay in working on this.— Rod talk 15:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now had a chance to look at Barrett and Tabor and added some additional bits on the defences etc and sorted out the page numbers etc. Is this the sort of thing you were looking for or do you feel something else is still needed?— Rod talk 19:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there are still some issues with the sequencing.
  • " Radical revisions of the Bronze Age archaeology on the lower slopes[9] derived from discoveries during excavations and survey work by the South Cadbury Environs Project. Bones recovered from the site have been radiocarbon dated to 3500 and 3300 BC and showed the area to have been very busy during the second millennium BC." there's something wrong here - 3500-3300 BC is in the Neolithic period, not the Bronze age, and 3500-3300 BC isn't in the second millenium.
  • I can't work out from the narrative what was happening in the early Bronze Age (Cadbury 3, I think, in phase terms)
  • When was the first earth bank erected? At the moment it is only dated to the Iron Age, but I think the sources are more precise.
    • Which source are you looking at?— Rod talk 20:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is cited in the article to Barrett, who has the first earth bank being erected at the end of the Early Cadbury period, i.e. around 300 BC, rather than just in the Iron Age. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added this in but I'm not sure I'm thinking of the same passage as you "A bank under the later Iron Age defences, which were constructed around around 300 BC, is likely to be a lynchet or terrace derived from early ploughing of the hilltop."— Rod talk
  • "During the first century BC additional lines of bank and ditch were constructed turning it into a a multivallate hillfort which is now known as the castle. Large ramparts and elaborate timber defenses were constructed and refortified at least five times over the following centuries." - I don't think the sequencing of the second half of the sentence is right: are you sure that it was refortified at least five times after 100 BC?
  • Some of the sources (e.g. the Listing) talk about addition fortification work (rebuilding the rampart several times) in 400-200 BC, which isn't mentioned at the moment (unless I've missed it). Hchc2009 (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry again for the delays, I got back from holiday a couple of days ago but have had a lot to sort out. I'm unclear exactly what you are suggesting for the first earth bank and refortification etc.— Rod talk 20:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Large ramparts and elaborate timber defenses were constructed and refortified over the following centuries. Excavation revealed round and rectangular house foundations, metalworking, and a possible sequence of small rectangular temples or shrines,[19][20] indicating permanent oppidum-like occupation." - are you sure that this is in the right place in the article? It seems to run counter/not mesh well with the description in EH document (pp.x). Hchc2009 (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

  • There is also a reference to him being involved in writing a book about Exeter in 1935 I think. As it stands, the tag isn't valid though, as there is no date of death, and - given his activity in the 1930s - there is no particular reason to believe he must have died before 1945, the current cut-off point for the life+70 rule (e.g. if he was 20 in 1890, he could easily have lived to be aged 75 in 1945). Hchc2009 (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have sent an email to VCH asking if they can help 1) identify the full name & date of death of C.H.Bothamley or 2) otherwise indicate that the sketch plans are now public domain.— Rod talk 09:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rod. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Query

[edit]

It's been twelve days since the last comments here and the last edits to the article. Hchc2009, Rod, what is left to do on/for this review? From what I can see there may be an unsolved issue with the image copyright; anything else outstanding? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did put a message on User talk:Hchc2009#Talk:Cadbury Castle, Somerset on 6 Sept asking if there was anything else. I'm am happy to remove the plan as I've not had anything back from VCH having sent them an email in July and not had any response.— Rod talk 19:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some final ce fixes, removed the plan due to the copyright problem, and will pass in a moment. Thanks for all your work on this Rod! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

Under Background, in the last paragraph is says, 'They would be functional as defensive strongholds when there were tensions and undoubtedly some of them were attacked and destroyed, but this was not the only, or even the most significant, factor in their construction.' Unfortunately the other possible/probable factors are not mentioned. This is a major omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.28.119 (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cadbury_Castle,_Somerset/GA1&oldid=705997595"