Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coffin Stone/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2019 [1].

Coffin Stone[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a stone in Kent that was perhaps once part of a chambered long barrow erected in the Early Neolithic period. Several other articles in this series (Medway Megaliths) have already reached FA, and this article is presently a GA, but hopefully it can join the others. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eric Corbett[edit]

Who could resist a coffin stone? I look forward to reading this and commenting later. Eric Corbett 22:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And just to warn you, I am going to be very nit-picky if you don't mind. But if you do, then I'll leave your article well alone.

  • "The topmost stone was placed there by a farmer in the twentieth century" I think you could justify the wordy "twentieth century" in the body of the article, but not in the image caption.
  • I don't see that linking "English" to "England" in the first sentence of the lead is particularly helpful.
  • " ... part of a destroyed chambered long barrow" A bit a bit awkward. What about "... was once part of a chambered long barrow"?
  • The issue that might arise through such a change would be one of repetition; the sentence before this (in the paragraph above it) contains the wording: "was part of a chambered long barrow". Thus, making such a change could lead to near-total duplication of wording in quite short succession. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Long barrow building was an architectural tradition ..." I think that "Long-barrow" should be hyphenated.
  • "... was an architectural tradition widespread across Neolithic Europe although comprised various localised regional variants" Seems like there's a word missing there? Comprised of perhaps? Comprising?
  • "... found human bones near to the stone" Why "near to" rather than just "near"?
  • "... might once have stood upright in the local vicinity" Doesn't "vicinity" imply local?

Location

  • "The Coffin Stone is located in Great Tottington Farm ..." Why "located in" rather than just "in"?
  • "It is also a short distance north of the Tottington springhead." I think it would be helpful to add a few words explaining what the Tottington springhead is, rather than expect the reader to follow the link.
  • Rather than ending up with repetitious wording like "Tottington springhead, a natural spring at Tottington", do you think it would make sense to simply change "Tottington springhead" completely to "a natural spring at Tottington"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... about 400 metres (1,300 ft) northwest of Little Kit's Coty House" You had "south-eastern in the lead, so for consistency this ought to be "north-west".
  • "As of 2005, the site was not signposted ..." That was fourteen years ago. Is it signposted now?
  • I'm not sure. Unfortunately this seems to be the most up-to-date Reliable Source that mentions this issue. It could be scrapped without any great loss to the article, but then again it may prove useful to some people reading the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, Eric! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from JM[edit]

I saw this at GAC, but someone beat me to it.

  • I'd recommend against including publishers for journals, but if you're going to do it, you should be consistent; The Reliquary lacks one.
  • "then it would have been built" The stone wouldn't have been built - the barrow would. I think this needs tweaking.
  • I've changed "it" to "the latter", which I think deals with the issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Long barrow building was" Can I recommend "The building of long barrows"? As you are using it, "long barrow" is a compound adjective, meaning it should have a dash. That will make for a confusing wikilink. The alternative would be "Long-barrow building was".
  • I've already switched to "Long-barrow building" in response to Eric's suggestion above although I really do not mind which wording we actually do with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The eastern group consists of Smythe's Megalith, Kit's Coty House, Little Kit's Coty House, the Coffin Stone, and several other stones that might have once been parts of chambered tombs, most notably the White Horse Stone." Is it not questionable to list the Coffin Stone with several long barrows, rather than with the stones that may have been parts of tombs? How about something like "The eastern group consists of Smythe's Megalith, Kit's Coty House, Little Kit's Coty House, and several stones that might have once been parts of chambered tombs, including both the Coffin Stone and the White Horse Stone."
  • The inclusion of the Coffin Stone at this juncture of the article was simply an error on my part. I have removed it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder whether it's worth bringing the material in the lead about the archeological investigation into the lead's first paragraph? I also wonder whether it's worth mentioning that some people have considered it a natural feature?
  • I only mention the recent excavation being appropriate for the first paragraph as it seems to throw a spanner in the works with traditional theories. I'm sympathetic with your worries (I take it) about undue weight and recentism, but the excavation here does seem to be a significant part of the overall story. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some alterations to the opening paragraph to make the findings of the excavation a little clearer although have not included mention of the excavation itself at that juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This looks strong. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for giving this one a read over, Josh! Hope that you found it interesting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, do you feel that you would be willing to give this article your support for FA status? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Yes, happy to. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The width of the stone is different in the lead vs the article text
  • Weird; I very distinctly recall making this change last night. But you're right, for one reason or other the change doesn't appear to have been saved. Anyway, I've done it again now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this, Nikkimaria. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sup MBO. Just FYI on the above, but the Jessop ref appears to want an ISBN? Hope all's well! ——SerialNumber54129 17:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added the ISBN in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Support from The Huhsz[edit]

What size is the stone? After the latest "corrections" we now state that the stone is a very different size from what the BBC thinks. Is the BBC wrong? This seems a very basic thing that we should be able to get right. --The Huhsz (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I add that I think it's odd to include only two dimensions in the lead. MBO: Has no one reported measuring it recently? Do the BBC's dimensions match any you've come across in the academic literature? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it is worth including all three dimensions in the lede, and I have now done so. As for the discrepancy between the different measurements, I believe that I can explain it. The measurements included in this article were those attained in the 19th century and published by Edwin Dunkin; they have also been republished in Paul Ashbee's accounts of the stone. At some point since Dunkin measured it, another big slab was placed largely on top of it, making it much more difficult to accurately measure. Thus, when Brian Philp and Mike Dutto described its measurements (presumably based on their own personal assessment), they could only say that it was "about 4.40m by 2.80m by at least 50 cm" (2005, page 6). The BBC website has taken this measurement, but dropped the "about", to claim that it is "4.4 metres long and 2.8 metres wide". So the BBC are making Philp and Dutto's rough measurement seem far more concrete than it really is. I'll add Philp and Dutto's comments to the article as a note so that it might clear up this issue for any future readers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @The Huhsz:; did you have any further comments for this article, or would you be willing to offer your support for its nomination? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks great. Thanks for fixing the size issue. I support. --The Huhsz (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

  • A marker for a visit shortly. Somewhat astonishingly I've actually visited this (albeit about 20 years ago), on a day when I went to the two nearby coty houses. I'll be along with comments shortly, and probably a source review unless I'm beaten to it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Location
  • "As of 2005": is there anything from the last 14 years we can use? (I presume not, but thought I'd check anyway)
  • Not that I am aware of. Unfortunately with 'minor' sites like this, often the Reliable Sources can be quite old. Hopefully something new will appear in future that will allow us to update this sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Context
  • Link to Kent for non Brits?
  • "from the continent.[6] The region of modern Kent would have been a key area for the arrival of continental European settlers". It may be worth considering "from continental Europe.[6] The region of modern Kent would have been a key area for the arrival of continental settlers", just to clarify.
Medway
  • You link Little Kit's Coty House in the lead and in the body, but Kit's Coty House is only linked in the lead
Description
  • Echoing the comments in the thread above: it looks a little odd having only some of the measurements in the lead, and those being slightly different
Antiquarian descriptions
  • Itinerarium Curiosum II: I'm just trying to work out the "II" at the end. The British Library and WorldCat don't list a second volume or addition and just show the title as "Itinerarium Curiosum"
  • You're right, there only seems to have been one volume with this title. It seems tat the volume was titled Itinerarium Curiosum, Or, An Account of the Antiquitys and Remarkable Curiositys in Nature or Art, Observ'd in Travels thro' Great Brittan. Centuria II; this is why Ashbee, in his article, refers to it as "Itinerarium Curiosum ii". It nevertheless makes sense to remove the "II" altogether here, which I have now done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Archaeological investigation
  • "the vicinity of the megalith and they were unable": the "and" sits uncomfortably here. Would a "but" or semi-colon work better?
  • I've gone with "but", which I think works well at this juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. I'm going to support now on the basis that it is perfectly good to go now – my suggestions are just that, suggestions that may be advantageous. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking a look at this one, SchroCat! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

  • Spot checks not done;
  • Searches for potential additional sources showed nothing missing;
  • Sources are all reliable and of the standard I would expect at FA;
  • Formatting is consistent throughout.

Pass source review – SchroCat (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2019 (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/Coffin_Stone/archive1&oldid=916449163"