Talk:Easter Aquhorthies stone circle

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Easter Aquhorthies stone circle appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 June 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Easter Aquhorthies stone circle (pictured) is one of the best preserved examples of a recumbent stone circle?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Easter Aquhorthies stone circle.

Wikipedia

Need other axis

To be meaningful, the description needs to specify the orientation of both axes, and a slight rewrite would be more elegant too.

So "The ring of stones is not quite circular and has a somewhat "squashed" aspect, measuring 18.4 m (60 ft) by 18.1 m (59 ft) along a WNW–ESE axis" would become something like "The ring of stones is not quite circular, measuring 18.4 m (60 ft) along a XXX-XXX axis by 18.1 m (59 ft) along a WNW–ESE axis, which gives it a somewhat "squashed" aspect."

Interesting article, btw. Awien (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the source and changed the wording. I presume the two axes are at right angles. Thincat (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]