Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2017 [1].

Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Bronze Age stone circle in southern England. It will likely intrigue editors interested in archaeology, religion, and folklore. The article is fairly short and is already GA-rated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bruce1ee[edit]

An interesting read – just a few comments:

Infobox

  • Not sure if I like the map caption ("Shown within Dorset"); how about "Location within Dorset"?

Location

  • "Enclosed within iron railings ...": no mention is made of when these railings were erected; is this information available?

Bibliography

  • Some of the author's names can be linked to articles. I take it the links were omitted here because they were linked in the body of the article. I would link them here also, but that's my personal opinion.

General

  • There is an inconsistency with units of measure in the article: sometimes the primary unit is metric with imperial conversion; other times it's imperial with metric conversion; in some instances there is no conversion. WP:MEASUREMENT says "In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric ..." Distance, it seems may be miles, but, as I see it, everything else should be metric with imperial conversions. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
  • There is inconsistency in the use of the thousands separator in years, eg. 3,300 and 3000. One or the other should be used.

—Bruce1eetalk 17:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, Bruce1ee. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the prose. Thanks for your responses and edits – I'm happy with them. —Bruce1eetalk 07:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank[edit]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "located" (lots of these), "over a period", "A number of": Some reviewers object to these phrases in some contexts; I have no comment.
  • "silent and empty monuments": quote marks, but I can't tell from the text who said it.
  • "The area of modern Dorset": Does this mean "modern Dorset"?
  • I used "modern Dorset" here so that readers would not presume that "Dorset" as a distinct demarcated region existed in the Neolithic/Bronze Age. I have nevertheless trimmed this down to "Modern Dorset". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thin scatter": If it was an actual thin scatter, remove the quotes. If you don't like the term, use a different term. If you're quoting someone, say who, but this isn't something I would quote.
  • I've added that the quote comes from Burl. I appreciate the concern here but I think that it would be difficult to paraphrase the term "thin scatter" with alternate wording and the term is perhaps a little poetic to be used without quotation marks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Nine Stones circle has been described": WP:INTEXT violation. INTEXT has been disputed a bit, but I think we can live with it. If it isn't important who said something, then the exact wording probably isn't all that important, either.
  • "In 1965 a woman from the Isle of Portland stated that her own father had always raised his cap when passing the circle.": I don't know why this is significant, or how it's related to the rest of the paragraph. Also, see the next bullet point.
  • It's a piece of recorded folklore associated with the site and has been mentioned by two separate books on Dorset folklore. Granted it may seem a little random but if the reliable sources mention it then so should we. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of Folklore, and all of Recent developments: I have concerns about FAC's "high quality" requirements ... is the say-so of a random person what we're looking for at FAC? But this is above my pay grade.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Thoroughly charming. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, sorry, I thought I was done, but there's something of a consensus now to look at tightening leads. I did some editing, and there's one more thing:
  • "The Nine Stones, also known as the Devil's Nine Stones, the Nine Ladies, or Lady Williams and her Dog": I didn't know until I looked it up tonight that our policy page WP:TITLE says that this is too many aliases for the lead sentence. They can be mentioned below the lead, or in the lead infobox, or in a note. No more than one alias in the first sentence would be ideal, if one is more common than the others. - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Technically, this nomination is out of process as the nominator had an article archived within two weeks. However, as that article had little review, and as this already has a support, I'm happy to let this one go rather than stop it on a technicality. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Sarastro1 - it seems that I got a little confused with regard to this rule. I always used to think that there was a two-week embargo period that had to be observed following the end of any FAC nomination, till your comment to me here in February. I mis-remembered your comment and somehow thought that there was no two-week period at all following the termination of an FAC. It won't happen again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sabine's Sunbird[edit]

This is great. Some minor quibbles.

  • Location launches straight into a grid location. That's probably less useful or interesting than more descriptive information like Dorset or Southern England. I know you mention Dorset in the lead, but the lead should cover material found in the main body of the article.
  • The area of modern Dorset has only is slightly odd, maybe just Dorset?
  • The Dorset circles have a simplistic typology, being of comparatively small size, with none exceeding 28 metres (92 feet) in diameter. This confuses me slightly. Are they simplistic because they are small? Also, what are they small compared to? Other stone circles? Other stone circles in Britain?
  • I have amended the prose here to the following: "The Dorset circles have a simplistic typology and are of a comparatively small size in comparison to other British stone circles,". Hopefully this explains things in an appropriate manner? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why only metric in the lead, but then leading with imperial in the description?
  • The site is in the care of English Heritage, when did they aquire it?

Will be happy to support when my points have been addressed or explained. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, Sabine's Sunbird. I'm glad that you were happy with the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I note you still go metric imperial in the lead and imperial metric in the article. I'd probably go metric then imperial, as Britain is mostly metric these days, unless they are drinking or driving (but hopefully not both). Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now... support. nothing to complain about. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rodw[edit]

Another interesting article.

Apart from these minor issues I think the article does a good job in describing the context, history and structure of the site.— Rod talk 19:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses. I can now support this article as meeting the criteria.— Rod talk 16:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed one, and once Rodw's comments are addressed, we need a source review, which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Cas Liber[edit]

  • Earwig's clear.
  • References formatted consistently.
  • FN 25 - used thrice. material faithful to source.
  • FN 34 - talks of Broad Stone being either 2.8m or 10 ft long, which differs from the text, which says 2 m (6.6 ft)....
  • FN 35 - used once. material faithful to source.
  • FN 39 - used once. material faithful to source.
  • FN 55 - used once. material faithful to source.

Thanks for the source review, Cas. I believe that the discrepancy with regard to the size of the Broad Stone comes from the fact that two different sources are cited; John Gale's book and the Historic England website. I'm not quite sure which of these is the more accurate of the two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into the situation, it appears that the Historic England website claims that the stone is 2.8m or 10ft long based on a field archaeologists' 1955 observation. John Gale's observation that it is 2 m (6.6 ft) in length was probably made about fifty years later. To me that suggests that the stone has lost about 0.8m of its length over the intermittent half century, which perhaps is not surprising given that it sits next to a road and may well have been hit by passing traffic once or twice. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Nine_Stones,_Winterbourne_Abbas/archive1&oldid=775150087"