Talk:Rempstone Stone Circle

Rempstone Stone Circle 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: November 5, 2016. (Reviewed version).

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.

Dorset Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dorset, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics connected with Dorset. If you would like to participate, you can visit the WikiProject Dorset project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.DorsetWikipedia:WikiProject DorsetTemplate:WikiProject DorsetDorset articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rempstone Stone Circle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Early Bronze Ages" Why ages?
- The plural is meant to refer to both the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, if that makes sense. In this case, do you think that the S should go? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd say so; wouldn't "Neolithic Age" be nonstandard? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have done so and will make the same change over at the Nine Stones article too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"the stones perhaps having supernatural associations for those who built them" Should this not be "the circles perhaps" or "who built the circles"? Nobody builds stones.
- A good point. I shall also make that change to Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Also unusually, it is located in a valley." Just a little thing, but the fact that this is unusual is not spelled out in the article proper.
- I've removed this from the article. It could be re-added, but on further thought I'm not sure if "unusually" is best here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The land on which the site sits is privately owned" Two quick questions; can people nonetheless visit, and does it have any protection? (Can stone circles be listed buildings? I don't know.)
- I'm not sure if the site can be visited, to tell the truth. Certainly none of the sources that I have been using mention this (Burl's 2005 gazetteer of stone circles to visit does not include this one, unfortunately). It would almost certainly be a scheduled ancient monument, and thus would have legal protection, although again I have not come across information that explicitly states this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found an online source which states that it is protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 so will add that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great, happy with that. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"With the exception of the Rempstone circle, all consist of sarsen stone.[13] With the exception of the circle at Litton Cheney, none display evidence of any outlying stones or earthworks around the stone circle." Given that the Rempstone circle is the subject of this article, I wonder if this could be rephrased? How about "The Rempstone circle is exceptional among these, as it is the only one which does not consist of of sarsen stone.[13] However, like all the others—with the exception of the circle at Litton Cheney—it does not display evidence of any outlying stones or earthworks." Just a thought!
- That looks like an improvement to me. I'll change the prose in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"with Gale adding that" Is he really adding that, or is he making a separate statement?
- Good point. I've gone with "stated" and re-jigged the sentence somewhat. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I don't know what "iron-impregnated" means, so I assume our readers won't. Also, according to our article, gritstone is a type of sandstone; this means "sandstone or gritstone boulders" is a little ambiguous. Do you mean "boulders variously described as sandstone and gritstone", "boulders which are sandstone (specifically, gritstone)" or "boulders which are standstone, including some which are gritstone"? (I appreciate that this is overwordy, so you probably wouldn't want to use my phrases, but some clarification could help.)
- With "iron-impregnated", I simply followed what the source stated. I assume that it means that bits of iron ore are found within the rock? As it is unclear I shall remove this from the sentence. Regarding gristone/sandstone, I found different sources stating different things, so I'll just keep things to "sandstone" and leave it at that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Brenscombe Farm? Presumably, adjacent to the circle?
- I would assume so, but the source itself does not make things particularly clear. Certainly the field in which the stone row was found was near to the circle, but maybe the farm covered a wider area. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem; could you make it a little clearer that the field is nearby? At the moment, it's not fully clear.
    - I've tried to clarify the prose a little. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Calkin noted that the stones were made of local sandstone, although were smaller than the stones in the circle, averaging about 2 feet 6 inches by 1 foot 6 inches." Why although?
- I was trying to juxtapose the fact that the material between the circle stones and the 'procession' stones were the same, while the sizes were different, but I'm not sure it really works. I'll amend the sentence to clarify things. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fully clear to me what I'm looking at in the lead image; presumably, two of the standing stones in the woodland? A caption may help!
- Good idea. It isn't a particularly clear image, unfortunately, but appears to be the only one that we have at Wikipedia. I'll add the caption. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are we going with "Rempstone Stone Circle" (article title and an image caption) or "Rempstone stone circle" (prose and infobox)?
- Hmm. I'm not too sure; neither is the 'right way', as it were. I changed the title to "Stone Circle" to standardise it with other Wikipedia articles (i.e. Coldrum Long Barrow etc) so I will ensure that the article itself is standardised by keeping it to "Stone Circle" in the article prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"...beliefs can be transferred to sites to which they are not relevant. 1973 it was recorded that the Rempstone Stone Circle near Studland (Dorset) was the result of a failed attempt by the Devil to destroy Corfe Castle by throwing rocks at it, but the circle was only discovered this century." From page 35 of this book; possibly of some use? I don't know.
- Oh, what a good find! I flicked through a few books dealing with folklore and stone circles (Grinsell etc) and could find no reference to Rempstone in them. I certainly didn't think of looking in Rattue's book (of which I have a copy). I probably should have thought about looking on Google Books too! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In turn Rattue is referencing Harte's 1986 book on Dorset folklore, which I do not have access to at present but I shall obtain a copy asap. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clear and concise; a strong article. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Josh! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that that's everything, Josh. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great, I'm happy with that. I made some last tweaks, and I'll leave the Rattue/Harte situation as one for you to look into. Promoting now. Great work, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]