Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coldrum Long Barrow/archive1

Add links
Source: 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) 13:07, 29 October 2017 [1].

Coldrum Long Barrow

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Neolithic burial site in Kent, south-eastern England, one of several Medway Megaliths located around the River Medway. Part of a tradition of chambered long barrow construction that took place across much of Europe in the Neolithic, it is one of the very oldest built constructions still extant in the British landscape. As well as having an important archaeological side to its story, it also has various folkloric associations. The article has been a GA for two years and I believe that it now meets FA criteria. I managed to get Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas to FA several months ago, and I'm hoping that this one can join it and improve our coverage of British prehistory. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Map_of_the_Medway_Megaliths.jpg: description page should include mention of sources used to create this map
  • File:Coldrum_skeletal_material.jpg: confused by this - if there is a FUR there should also be a fair-use tag of some sort. The given PD tag requires more explanation, both regarding which point is believed to apply as well as what steps have been taken to attempt to identify author. Same with File:Coldrum_skulls.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been having trouble with these photographs and finding their precise origins. To ascertain the photographer, one would probably have to start exploring the museum archives, and I am not in a position to do that. I have removed the photos and replaced them with another image of the site itself, which should cause no copyright problems. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • There's a Harvard error on each of the Holgate citations - 1981 v 1982 I think
  • Ref 51: mdash in page range
  • Bibliography:
  • National Trust: The title on the linked page is apparently "Stunning views from the top of the barrow", not the title you give in your bibliography
  • Way: Can you clarify which of the articles listed on the linked page is your source article?
  • Ditto with Wright
  • (being really pernickety) isbns should be consistently formatted. The 10-digit isbn shown for the Malone book can be converted to 13 via this.

Otherwise, all sources are of impeccable quality and reliability. Signature added following the reproof below. Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above source review is by Brianboulton. He should be forgiven his absence of mind in omitting to add his tiddlies, as he's almost as old as I am, poor soul. Tim riley talk 13:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your time on this one, Brian! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

I expect to be supporting the elevation of this comprehensive and fascinating article, but I have a few very small quibbles first.

  • In the "Meaning and purpose" section I imagine "mouments" is a typo, but as it is in a quotation I didn’t like to alter it.
  • In the Bibliography I wondered about "Otherparts" (in the George Payne entry).
  • "North Downs" is linked twice in the main text.
  • "an idea likely derived", "monuments were likely influenced" and "a local community could likely muster" – a curiously AmE feel to this formation. In ordinary BrE I'd expect "an idea probably derived", "monuments were probably influenced" and "a local community could probably muster". (The other "likely" in the text seems to me perfectly idomatic.)
  • Good. Privately I think the AmE "likely" is rather better than our BrE "probably" (always prefer the shorter word to the long, and the Anglo Saxon - or in this case Norse - to the Latin) but the BrE usage here is pretty invariable. Tim riley talk 16:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • False titles: in a BrE article, it is jarring to see false titles such as "Archaeologist Robin Holgate", "historian Ronald Hutton" and "Archaeologist Caroline Malone". Prefixing them with a definite article would take away the pain.
  • "morris dancing – one hates to encourage goings-on of that sort, but the Wikipedia article capitalises Morris throughout. The OED on the other hand, doesn’t. I leave it to you to decide which is the greater authority on the point.

Nothing of any great consequence here, but it would be nice to have these minor points cleared up. – Tim riley talk 13:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for offering your thoughts, Tim; I've responded to all of them but if there is anything else then please do let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After another perusal I am happy to add my support for this article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Another most readable and enjoyable article from Midnightblueowl. Tim riley talk 16:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

This is well-written and appears to be comprehensive. I have a small number of questions and suggestions.
Lead
  • ¶1 "located near to the village" – Trim to "near the village"?
  • Link sarsen in the lead caption?
Context
  • ¶2 "Britain was largely forested in this period,[8] with Kent only seeing widespread forest clearance in the Late Bronze Age." – Link Late Bronze Age and give a date span?
Agreed. Good catch. Finetooth (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶2 Replace "with plus -ing" construction in the Late Bronze Age sentence? Suggestion: "Britain was largely forested in this period; widespread forest clearance did not occur in Kent until the Late Bronze Age (date span)."
The chamber
  • ¶1 "and 53 centimetres (1 foot, 9 inches) in depth at its thicker, eastern end." – Should this be "in thickness" rather than "in depth"?
Demographics
  • ¶5 "revealed that while the bones had δ13C values" – Link δ13C?
  • ¶5 "they had significantly higher values of δ15C, which grew over time." – Should that be δ15N? An isotope of nitrogen rather than carbon?
Post-mortem disposition
Again, a very sensible idea. Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Damage and dilapidation
  • ¶2 "which ordered the opening of tumuli" – Link tumuli?
Folklore, folk tradition, and modern Paganism
  • ¶4 "Pagans sometimes visit the site alone or in pairs, there to meditate, pray, or perform rituals, with some having reported experiencing visions there." – Replace the "with plus -ing"? Suggestion: "Pagans sometimes visit the site alone or in pairs, there to meditate, pray, or perform rituals, and some have reported experiencing visions there."
Early antiquarian descriptions
  • ¶1 "alerted to their existence by a local vicar" – Link vicar?
Agreed. Good catch. Finetooth (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶3 "stating that two individuals excavated in the centre of the chamber without permission, discovering a human skeleton, the skull of which was re-buried in the churchyard..." – Slightly smoother might be "stating that two individuals who excavated in the centre of the chamber without permission discovered a human skeleton, the skull of which was re-buried in the churchyard..."
Archaeological excavation
  • ¶1 "he returned to excavate on the north-west corner of the dolmen" – Link dolmen?

Comments from FunkMonk

  • "about 500 metres from", "one and a quarter miles away" I'm assuming that conversions would be needed for measurements here, since you also do it elsewhere. Anyhow, you should be consistent in what units you use.
  • I think you could mention country and area under Name and location too, the intro and infobox should only summarise info found in the article body, but now the info isn't there.
  • I'm not an WP:engvar fanatic at all, but isn't this sufficiently associated with the UK for British English to be used in the article? Maybe it is supposed to be UK, I just see "meters" written various places instead of "metres".
    I've ensured standardisation as "metre". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you could define long barrow in-text early in the article body. The article is written in a way that just assumes the reader knows what it means.

Many thanks for your comments, FunkMonk! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "from the vicinity of the White Horse Stone" It could be explained what this is.
  • "and Maloideae Only genera and species should be in italics, not families.
  • "They can be divided into two separate clusters" I would name them, since this is the start of a new paragraph.
  • "Eocene." You could add "epoch", so readers will not confuse it with the much narrower periods also mentioned.
  • Any genetic work done on the human remains?
  • Are there any reconstructions of how the monument would have looked originally?
  • I'm not sure that any would be fair use given that they would be artistic depictions created by other people. The other option would be for someone with a talent for art to produce a reconstruction (based on others) which could then be used here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Constructed circa 4000 BCE," Only seems to be stated explicitly in the intro, which should not have unique info. Also, what is the date based on?
Oh, so that's the only line of evidence that has been used for dating? FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's also the stylistic evidence, i.e. that it is a chambered long barrow and these are known to have been erected in the Early Neolithic. So it's a matter of relative dating, rather than any absolute dating. Hopefully any future excavation might be able to utilise techniques like carbon dating and thus ascertain a more precise date for the barrow's construction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about by Neolithicisation" Which is what?
  • It would seem those 1910 photos might be PD-old, know who the photographer was? In any case, they are PD-US, so you should upload them here locally in full res, like for example this image:[2]
  • "in a paper largely concerned with discerning racial characteristics of the bodies" May be controversial, but what did he conclude?
  • "their results were published in the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society in 2013" Do we really need to name the journal in-text? You don't do this for other such studies.
  • " published in the Folklore journal" Likewise.
  • "Wysocki's team noted that in all but one case, the fracture morphologies" Maybe add "of the bones" to make it clearer.
  • "on the left frontal" Spell out frontal bone and link. A bit too jargony.
  • "sub-adults" Seems too jargony, could at least be defined.
  • "as seen here in contemporary Sichuan" Better to give a date, or be more vague, like "modern". If this article exists in 50 years, will the photo still be "contemporary"?
  • "The inclusion of occupational debris" Which is what exactly?
  • "earth energy" Any reason why this isn't linked?
  • "spirits of Albion" Could be linked.
Yep, that's what I was thinking. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kit's Coty House" is mentioned a few times, but what is it?
Right, for some reason it didn't work when I searched the article... FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have there been no excavations after the 1920s?
  • "An patch of scorched earth exists on the grass" Looks like a mistake
  • "After limited reconstruction" You mention this in the intro, but I cant see any elaboration in the article body.
That seems just short of reconstruction, though? Perhaps clarification would be better. Or do the sources refer to it as reconstruction? If so, it could also be solved by stating this explicitly in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the lede a little to better clarify things, but I felt that doing so just made that last lede paragraph too clunky, so I felt that the best bet was just to remove "After limited reconstruction" all together. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why your self-made diagrams haven't been moved to Commons? Could be useful to other projects.
I would, but the tools for it somehow don't work for me anymore... FunkMonk (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

  • Of these, it is in the best surviving condition.. - this segment is in a funny location tacked onto that sentence. If there were some way to tack this onto the previous sentence it would make more sense.
  • I think that appending it to the previous sentence would make the sentence in question a bit too long. Instead, I've made "Of these, it is in the best surviving condition" a sentence all of its own, which I feel deals with the problem you mention without creating another. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the long barrow fell into a state of ruined dilapidation - why not just, " the long barrow fell into a state of ruin"?
  • Another nearby village is Addington, which is located 5.23 kilometres (one and a quarter miles) away - why not just "The village of Addington is located 5.23 kilometres (one and a quarter miles) away"
  • I wonder if the Medway Megaliths section is possibly a little too detailed for this article (given there is a parent article..?)
  • I'd add as a prefix to Michael Wysocki his occupation maybe

Otherwise a detailed and eminently readable article. Nice job. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, Cas Liber. I have responded to them all, although if there is anything else then do let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: All the images have alt text except for "Coldrum Long Barrow 4.jpg". For consistency, it would be worth adding this but it isn't an outright requirement and is not worth delaying promotion over. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:06, 29 October 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/Coldrum_Long_Barrow/archive1&oldid=1138457787"