Talk:Dunkery Hill/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) 16:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that's really bothering me about this article is that it's called Dunkery Beacon, yet it's almost all about Dunkery Hill. This propagates even to the 1928 sale, which the article says was of Dunkery Beacon when the plaque clearly shows it must have been Dunkery Hill.

OK, although most of the sources talk about Dunkery Beacon when referring to the hill but I would be happy to move it to "Dunkery Hill" which currently redirects to this article. (might need an admin for this).— Rod ^talk 18:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So shall we assume from now on that the article is called Dunkery Hill, and I'll comment accordingly? Eric Corbett 19:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I have whaetever powers are needed & the article is now Dunkery Hill.— Rod ^talk 19:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Location

What's the source for the formula "distance of hill from its nearest higher neighbour squared, multiplied by its height"? Does it have a name? For all I know it could be something you made up yourself. The second half of that paragraph needs to be cited anyway.

I'm not inventive enough to have made that up but agree it needs a source. I thought it was in the definition of Marilyn (geography) but can't see it now & led me to Topographic prominence ( a redirect from Relative height), but I will look for a source.— Rod ^talk 18:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that claim was added by User:EdSomerset on 17 September 2006 (Diff). Give me another 24 hours to look for a source - if not I will remove it.— Rod ^talk 19:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any source for this calculation so have removed it from the article.— Rod ^talk 17:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a pretty dubious formula anyway. I'd go so far as to call it a hoax. Eric Corbett 17:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"At 1,705 feet (520 m) Dunkery Beacon is the highest geographical point in Somerset ..." I know what you're trying to say, but that's a rather restricted view of geography, which would include man-made structures in my understanding.

How about "highest natural point" or similar

That would work. Eric Corbett 18:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.— Rod ^talk 19:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"... although the tip of the Mendip TV Mast is higher above sea level". As opposed to higher above something else? Is a distinction being made that the height of the beacon isn't also measured from sea level?

I would assume both are above sea level (although we should be using Ordnance datum, particularly as the nearest sea (Bristol Channel) has a very large tidal range).— Rod ^talk 18:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick drive by comment; I figured out what "OD" meant (being a big OS map fan) but I think this would jar a casual reader. Perhaps it would be better to move the "OD" to a footnote, explaining why it doesn't mean "above sea level" in this instance? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did wikilink the first occurrence to the article explaining it, but would it be helpful to put (mean sea level) or similar after it?— Rod ^talk 17:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. I noticed the wikilink, but generally I feel the user shouldn't be required to click on a link to understand what is meant, but rather to explore that specific topic in more detail. If you get my drift. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a brief explanation. I dislike notes as they also draw the reader away from the text. Any advice on improving the wording to make it clearer welcome.— Rod ^talk 11:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"the height above mean sea level" - do you mean "the mean height about sea level"? Aside from that, that looks better, thanks. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much better - I've used your version. Thank you.— Rod ^talk 14:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph needs to be cited.

Citation added for views etc.— Rod ^talk 19:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History

We're being told twice that there are Bronze Age cairns on the summit.

Reworded info re Joaney How etc.— Rod ^talk 19:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A circular funerary stone mound 850 metres (2,790 ft) north of Dunkery Bridge ..." Where's Dunkery Bridge? I thought we were talking about the hill.

The bridge is lower & 1.5 miles (2.4 km) from summit - one of the car parks for the walk - added to article - does this explain enough?— Rod ^talk 19:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the media

I think it's stretching credibility to call Lorna Doone media, but I don't think that such a small section can be justified anyway. Why not move this one rather short sentence to the Location section, where it would fit quite naturally?

Moved.— Rod ^talk 19:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"The sandstone hill rises to 1,705 feet (520 m) and provides views over the surrounding moorland, the Bristol Channel and hills up to Bristol Channel away." What does "hills up to Bristol Channel away" mean?

That should have been 86 ,miles away (& I'm sure it used to say that).— Rod ^talk 19:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History

Do we have any idea when Dunkery Beacon and its surrounding mounds were designated an ancient monument? Was the designation anything to do with Bondfield's question in the House of Commons?

Unfortunately the scheduling data sheet lacks a date (lots of EH/Historic England entries are missing data) I will look and see if I can find it elsewhere.— Rod ^talk 19:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Exmoor Historic Environment Records for Dunkery are not particularly helpful on this either.— Rod ^talk 08:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of digging.. The PastScape record for Dunkery Beacon gives a possible clue. Reference 3 is to the Ministry of Works Scheduled Monument Notification in 1961 - so that "may" be the original date of scheduling.— Rod ^talk 08:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite make sense of what happened between 1928 and 1935. My understanding is that the Holnicote Estate was owned by the Acland family, so where do Colonel Wiggin and Allan Hughes fit into the 1935 donation to the National Trust? The link to Acland baronets from Sir Thomas Acland doesn't seem particularly useful, as the article doesn't appear to mention him.

This document of NT acquisitions (p16) tells us that:

Holnicote: Dunkery Beacon, Atcham and Ham 346.924 hectares (857.27 acres) acquired freehold on 5 May 1932 from Wiggin, Lt Col W W
Holnicote: Dunkery Hill 382.044 hectares (944.05 acres) acquired freehold on 8 August 1934 from Bateson, O L

So it appears that different parcels of land were held by different people and "acquired" (often gifted or by covenant) at different dates.
This source (non-RS) has a reasonable explanation:

- " How the Dunkery Hill section became National Trust property in 1935 in the time of the 14th Baronet, Sir Francis Acland is unclear, as is the reason why his long dead grandfather is given the credit. Mr Allan Hughes Esq owned a smaller parcel of land. He died before 1934 and the donation was actually made by his widow. She, doubtless, had a name of her own - most people have - but I have found no reference to her other than as Mrs Allan Hughes. Colonel Wiggin, was master of the Somerset Stag Hounds from 1917 until his death in 1936. After a military career he became a director, and then chairman of the family firm Henry Wiggin and Co* in Birmingham. He lived in Birmingham but had a house and some land in Somerset, part of which he gave to the National Trust in 1932."
I'm not convinced that the entire Holnicote Estate was handed over to the National Trust in 1935, and only one of the three sources cited says that it was. The WP Holnicote Estate article claims that the entire estate wasn't handed over until 1944.

The same document and page linked above (NT acquisitions) shows that the massive area (see for example Holnicote: Killerton and Holnicote) was from Acland, Sir R T D on 9 September 1944 but other bits from him were 6 June 1944 but other bits from others were on other dates - the most recent being a church in 2002. The National Trust (and other sources) now call all of it the Holinicote Estate but parts may have been split from it or added to it over hundreds of years.— Rod ^talk 08:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So it doesn't appear to be true that Dunkery Hill was handed over to the National Trust at the same time as the entire Holnicote Estate? I don't want to turn this into a full-scale FA review, so I'd be be happy with a simplified version of events. Eric Corbett 09:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at simplifying this.— Rod ^talk 09:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent you an email. Eric Corbett 09:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your email but didn't find the links useful in sorting out the dates.— Rod ^talk 15:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't received any email, but I'll read through the article again this evening and see where we are with it now. Eric Corbett 16:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tried again to send my reply. (I din't think you edited on Mondays).— Rod ^talk 16:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the light of recent "resignations" from the WMF I've suspended my campaign. Eric Corbett 17:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and edits - I agree with all of them except unbolding Dunkery Beacon in the lead as it redirects here and I thought the targets of redirects are supposed to be bold. I will look for answers to the other queries tomorrow as I'm out in a few minutes.— Rod ^talk 19:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to fall out with you over that. Eric Corbett 20:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my not being comfortable about how a dead peer could have donated anything in 1935 the plaque does seem plain enough, so I think we can close this now. Eric Corbett 22:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.