Talk:Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 15:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

How interesting; happy to offer a review. It's always surprised me just how many of these are dotted around. Swinside and Birkrigg stone circle were both very close to where I grew up, but I don't think people were really aware of them. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It must have been a lovely landscape to grow up in! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• The lead is disproportionately long for an article of this size, in my view.
  • I understand that view, particularly as four paragraphs may seem unnecessarily lengthy. I was following the example of Coldrum Long Barrow, which again uses that four paragraph lede structure. Do you think that merging two of the paragraphs would improve things? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I think it would. I've done so; feel free to rejig yourself. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• "The Nine Stones circle consists of nine sarsen megaliths which are irregularly spaced, with a diameter of 9.1 metres by 7.8 metres across." I initially read this as meaning that the stones had this diameter, which is obviously not correct.
  • I've changed this to "The Nine Stones circle has a diameter of 9.1 metres by 7.8 metres and consists of nine sarsen megaliths which are irregularly spaced." How does that look?
    • Yes, better! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• "hindered the taking of photographs of it" If I was being picky, I'd say that this is a little clumsy
  • I've changed the wording here to "He noted that it was difficult to take clear photographs of the site because of the surrounding trees". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• "Neolithic" (including "Late" and "Early") is used several times without a link
  • I've added links to Neolithic British Isles and then to Neolithic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• "with nine possible examples know within its boundaries" Not a problem with this article at all, but that would potentially make for a really nice list.
  • Good idea. I hope to incorporate more of this information in the Stone circles in the British Isles and Brittany article one day. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• "the chalk hills west" Do we have an article on the area? Or perhaps on "chalk hills" more generally?
  • I'm not aware of an article on this area and our article on Chalk Hills appears to about a specific location in California. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• "their use and possibly their construction may last into the Middle and even into the Late Bronze Age" Could you double-check that quote? It's an odd tense to use...
  • I've checked, and the quote has been correctly copied from the original source. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks; happy to leave as-is, then. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Do we have an article we can link to on "earthen circles"?
  • We already link to "earthen henges" earlier in the article, so what I have done is changed "earthen circles" to "earthen henges" when it appears on that second occasion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks- clearer. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Perhaps you could provide some information about the reasons that these structures were built in the "Context" section?
  • I've added a few sentences discussing this issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• foot or feet for plural?
  • I've standardised this to "feet". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• "eight tons" Can we have this in metric as well? Google suggests just over 7 tonnes.
  • All of the measurements mentioned in this article are based on what the reliable sources actually stated. Thus, where they used the metric system, I added metric measurements into the article; where they used imperial, I applied imperial. However, I think that your point is a very valid one, so I will use the powers of Google to ascertain what the imperial/metric measurements are when the other is not specified. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not fussed about it at this stage, but I think some people might prefer you to standardise to either metric or imperial throughout- i.e., all measurements being "metric (imperial)" or all being "imperial (metric)". Josh Milburn (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• "The circle is located at the bottom of a narrow valley, which is unusual for a monument of this type.[refs] Within Dorset, the Rempstone stone circle was however also erected within a valley.[refs]" I don't want to mess up your referencing, but perhaps this could be rephrased to something like "The circle is located at the bottom of a narrow valley.[refs] Though this is unusual for a monument of this type,[refs] the Dorset Rempstone stone circle was also erected within a valley.[refs]"
  • I really like your proposed prose alteration here so shall implement it within the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• "about half a mile" Again, metric would be good ("approximately 1 km" would work)
  • Added, as above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• "about 1.5 km" And now there's no imperial!
  • Again, changed as above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to merge the folklore/druidry and history sections.
  • Initially the two were merged, but I separate them in order to better follow the format that I previously utilised over at Coldrum Long Barrow. If you think that such a re-merger would have a very obvious benefit then I can certainly do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
    • The split seems slightly arbitrary to me, and doesn't follow a standardised structure that I know of. Happy to let it drop at this stage, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• "Gale later stated that this allegation "has never been substantiated"." Is allegation really the right word?
  • I've gone with "claim", which has already appeared in that paragraph but which is probably a more apt alternative. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• "As of 1939, the site had not been excavated." Is this not a little old?
  • True. I've had a rummage, and found a reference in Gale's 2003 book that mentions that the Hampton stone circle is the only such monument in Dorset to have been excavated. Accordingly I've been able to update this statement a little to "As of 2003". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Great! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• The sources are fine, but your further reading item lacks a publishing location.
  • Well spotted, I have now added the location to this title (Dorchester). Hopefully I'll be able to access this book and add information from it to the article in the future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• I wonder if Category:Religion in Dorset and Category:Neo-druidism in Britain may be worth adding.
  • I definitely think so. I will add the two categories. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Please check my edits.
  • They all look good, although not sure that I would have removed "Piggott" from Stuart's name. Thanks Josh. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
    • You're welcome to add it back if you prefer! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

A strong article and a worthy subject. I've no doubt I'll be promoting soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• I think that I have responded to all of your points, Josh. Many thanks for taking the time to read through the article and offering your thoughts on it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • That's great; I've left some replies above, but I'm happy that the article is ready for GA status, so I'm going to promote it now. Great work, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

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.