Talk:Coldrum Long Barrow

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Coldrum Long Barrow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) 14:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll be your reviewer today. Taking one last pass through the text and I'll get comments going. I'm happy to say that it's in excellent shape already, and I fully expect promotion at the end of the review process. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

1. A Good Article is well-written.

• "Constructed circa 4000 BCE, during Britain's Early Neolithic period, today it survives only in a ruined state although is open to visitors all year round." -Implies a contrast between being a ruin and being open to visitors throughout the year, but that doesn't really logically follow. My suggestion here is to actually move the visitation bit toward the end of the lead as part of a change to where that appears in the body (see below).
  • Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Since the Early Neolithic, the long barrow has fallen into a state of dilapidation, with suggestions being made that it was intentionally demolished by Christian zealots in the late 13th or early 14th century CE." -The suggestions didn't cause the dilapidation (and "suggestions being made") is weak wording.
  • I've changed it to "After the Early Neolithic, the long barrow fell into a state of ruined dilapidation, perhaps being largely demolished by Christian zealots in the late 13th or early 14th century CE." Does this work ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• In the Name and Location section, the second paragraph discusses what's basically tourism information concerning its management by the National Trust. Perhaps this entire paragraph would be better moved to the end of the article, in the "Management by The National Trust" subsection (and the lead adjusted accordingly, as noted above)?
  • I've moved the paragraph to the end, as you suggest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• "On their website, the Trust advises the visitor to look out for what they consider to be "Stunning views from the top of the barrow"." -Since we're directly quoting, we know that this phrase is in their voice, not Wikipedia's, so the "what they consider" phrasing is probably redundant. Perhaps simply: On their website, the Trust advises visitors to look for "stunning views from the top of the barrow".
  • Good call; I've changed it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Britain was largely forested in this period, although did witness some land clearance." -This may be a British English issue, in which case, ignore my American ear, but I might use "experience" in place of "witness" here.
  • I'd actually say that "witness" works better than "experience" here, but again that might be a British English versus American English issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Link White Horse Stone.
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• The paragraph in the "tomb building tradition" subsection that begins "In Britain..." has a great deal of "many archaeologists" / "others" wording. Because these claims are cited but simply unclear attributions in the prose, this is probably okay to slide by at the GA level, but there's no reason this article shouldn't aim for the FA criteria.
  • I'll bear that in mind. As you note, however, I am basing the prose upon what it says in the original texts. They don't specify particular archaeologists by name, but I could probably find that out with further research. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Ah, well, if that's what the sources actually say on the issue, then just ignore me! (And expect to point that out at FAC, if you head there at some point...). That's what I get for not peeking at the source material there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Links in the lead don't prejudice links in the body (as far as link duplication goes), and it might be nice to link the other megaliths at their first appearance in the Midway Megaliths section.
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Link lynchet (and I'm not sure I've ever heard "lynchet scarp"; is that what the source says?).
  • I have added the link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Link portal stone to megalithic architectural elements#Portal stones, mostly in the hope that target will be expanded eventually.
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Excavations conducted in the early 20th century have led to the methodical discovery and removal of what was believed to be the remains of twenty-two human individuals, which were the result of a study published in 1913 by Sir Arthur Keith, the Conservator of the museum at the Royal College of Surgeons, which was largely concerned with discerning racial characteristics of the bodies." -This sentence is long, unwieldy, and I think simply tries to convey too much information between full stops. In particular, the clause order makes it sound like the remains were the result of the 1913 study.
  • Good point, I have carved the prose up into smaller, more succinct sentences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Disputing earlier conclusions, it stated that the minimum number of individuals being seventeen." -Probably should be "was seventeen".
  • Good idea, corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• In the radiocarbon dating section, I'm not familiar with the "cal" in the dates. Is "3670–560" meant to be 3670–3560?
  • Yes, I have corrected the date in the prose. "Cal" is the shorthand used when referring to radiocarbon dates, and means "calibrated". I have indicated this in the prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• "The method of systematic destruction became evident at Chestnuts Long Barrow..." -Since there's been no prior discussion of systematic destruction, having this start with "the method" is odd. What method? Probably the best choice here is to just tighten up the sentence.
  • I've reworded this section to the following: "Excavation of Chestnuts Long Barrow revealed that it had been systematically destroyed in one event, and Ashbee suggested that the same may have happened to the Coldrum Stones. He believed that the kerb-stones around the barrow were toppled, laid prostrate in the surrounding ditch, and then buried during the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century, by Christians seeking to obliterate non-Christian monuments." Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• The link to British Isles in the Medway Megaliths section is a duplicate link. You actually have quite a few duplicate links from there through the end of the article. Paul Ashbee is linked something like four times.
  • Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Evans also recorded that there was a folk belief in the area that applied to all of the Medway Megaliths and which had been widespread "Up to the last generation"..." -No need to capitalize "Up" (even if it was in the original) when using a direct quote inline in this manner.
  • Fair enough. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• You redlink countless stones in the lead, but not when you discuss it in the body. If you think this is a realistic candidate for expansion, might as well.
  • I've redlinked it later in the article too. I definitely think that this folk motif is worthy of its own Wikipedia article, and might create it myself in the near future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I've gone ahead and created a countless stones page now, so that sorts that problem out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

2. A Good Article is verifiable with no original research.

• I have nothing bad to say about your sourcing, which is thorough and based on sources of ideal quality. FAC will want you to dig up OCLC numbers for book references that do not have assigned ISBNs. That's certainly not an issue for GA.

6. A Good Article is illustrated, if possible, with images.

• License tagging and all that fun stuff looks good.
• The caption in the infobox, although long, isn't a complete sentence, so shouldn't end with a period. It also doesn't need the comma following "slope".
  • Done and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• The caption for the area map should either have "river" non-capitalized or specifically name the River Medway.
  • Agreed; I've gone with "River Medway" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• The excarnation image caption is a complete sentence, and so does need a period.
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• The Morris Men caption needs one, too.
  • Also done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Very little of this is critical, nor should it be particularly difficult to adjust. Tagging the article on hold so that you can make some adjustments, but this is very close to earning its GA token. It probably would benefit from an overall copy-edit before taking it to FAC (which isn't my forte, despite having tried to single out some particularly visible wording problems), but I see no reason why this couldn't aim for the gold star as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that I have responded to all the comments, Squeamish Ossifrage. If you do have any further comments or responses then please let me know. Otherwise, thank you so much for taking the time to review this article, and I hope that you found it an interesting and/or enjoyable read! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

My only remaining response is to congratulate you on your Good Article! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated Squeamish Ossifrage, thank you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2015 (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.

Excarnation photo is poor editorial judgement

Do we really need to have the photo to support excarnation? Even the article for excarnation itself doesn't have a photo. People wanting to read about an archeological site don't want to be caught off guard with such a morbid image. I think it's extremely poor editorial judgement to include it here even if it supports the article. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree: the reference to excarnation is a very minor detail of the article's over-all coverage and I'd question whether devoting space to any image on the topic was truly advancing the encyclopedic understanding of this article's topic--let alone this particularly inappropriate choice. Honestly, I don't know how that particular image would illustrate/improve the actual article excarnation--it's not particularly high quality and doesn't really illustrate much about the process, being really little more than a picture of a corpse--but regardless, on this article it would only seem to serve as a jarring distraction. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Granted, the photograph in question is not of intrinsic importance to the article, but I think it worth noting it has been a part of it for at least five years with no one raising concerns, either at the Talk Page or at GAN or FAC. The image in question is neither particularly graphic nor gory so I don't see anything gratuitous about its use. Its appearance allows for some visual representation of the sorts of activities which may have taken place at the site during the Early Neolithic period and on this nicely complements the text. Moreover, removing it on the basis that some might find it morbid perhaps contravenes the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly Jason Quinn. The photo is not actually relevant. Personally, I would remove it completely...and then again, why is the photo not included in the excarnation article? The indubitable questionable use of this photo ALONE makes this article too edgy to be a featured article, by definition representing the best work of Wikipedia. Perhaps we could prepare the following legend: WARNING - DEAD BODY PHOTO BELOW! Certainly Wikipedia must have guidelines on the use of such photos, in medical or combat journalistic contexts. Mousebelt (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far to say it's "too edgy to be a featured article", and the image is OK in context. That said though, I would probably support removing it as it doesn't IMHO add that much in terms of understanding the topic, and could cause confusion - at first glance I assumed it was a re-enactment set around the location of the long barrow itself, rather than in China.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl. This is an obscure article. Not many eyeballs would have seen it until it hit the main page. So it is not surprising that no specific discussion of the photo occurred for several years. What is surprising to me is that the photo and its fitness/unfitness of being included were not discussed during FA review. Among the many clearly apropos photos, this one sticks out like a sore thumb. No reviewer thought it needed debate? Wanting it removed is not NOT a question of censorship. As I stated, this is a question of judgement. I would not be opposed to the photo being used in a more appropriate context but here the link to excarnation is tangential and the merits of including the photo are minor compared to the drawbacks. While Wikipedia is not censored, please remember Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We don't include information (in this case photos) if it doesn't benefit the article and the reader as a whole. The bulk of editors seem to think, it was bad judgement to include this photo, and hopefully that sample is representative of the bulk of readers too so that removal the photo was a good decision. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest the photo be removed, it adds little to the article: the images caption includes the the phrase "...an excarnation process, as seen here in Sichuan, China, in the early twenty-first century." This appears to be something of an insult to Sichuan as being neolithic. In addition I'd suggest the body is that of an executed prisoner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastairm66 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC) . Apologies Alastairm66 (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the picture of an excarnation from the article, following the above discussion. The picture is not directly related to the article, and could be included in the Excarnation article, which does not have any illustration at the moment. I would suggest that any decision to restore it in this article should be the result of a discussion.Olivier (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. There seem to be quite a few editors who think the image is unnecessary. While I do think that the image added something to the article, it certainly was not of sufficient importance that I would take this issue further. We have plenty of images of the site itself, so we can use one of those pictures instead. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Dodgy metric conversion

5.23 kilometres is not one and a quarter miles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Bell (talk • contribs) 04:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Fixed - the miles figure was the original, which presumably matches the source (and seems correct from Google maps). The 5.23 figure was inserted later and I assume just an incorrect conversion. I've amended it to say 2 km, which roughly matches the 1.25 miles figure, to one significant figure.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It is extraordinary to find a GA, let alone an FA, that had so many gross conversion errors. Template:convert is designed to prevent this sort of error, as well as providing the nbsp and parentheses needed for good formatting. What worries me now is whether the original source was written using feet and inches and an editor has incorrectly converted to metres, which I have just converted to imperial again with the potential result that the output may no longer match the source. If the source was written in imperial but the lead editor here wants to use modern scientific notation, then the data should be transcribed into the convert template in imperial and the order=reverse argument used. --Red King (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue, Red King. I'll check the source material and ensure that any problems are rectified. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The situation has now, I believe, been rectified. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention. I was not using the convert template when I wrote this article and brought it through GAN (2015) and FAC (2017); I have only been using it in more recent years. I'll be sure to add the template to other, older articles that I have worked on as and when I prepare them for FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Embarrassing

It's a shame this went up on TFA in the state it did. "Off of"? Hardcoded image sizes? Every third sentence containing "although"? It looks like it was written by a ninth grader. Rather surprising to see the prose was allegedly vetted at FAC. I lack the time and energy to see whether it was this poor when it passed FAC, or whether it was better and has been allowed to deteriorate. It's immaterial. Please fix it. --The Huhsz (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are comparatively new here at Wikipedia but I really recommend that in future you pay more attention to Wikipedia:Civility. It isn't helpful to accuse other editors of producing articles that read like the work of "a ninth grader". Worse were your comments to User:Amakuru ([1]; [2]) after they reverted your own prose edits, which introduced a host of problems into the article. If you have comments about the language used in the article then you are more than welcome to raise those concerns at the Talk Page, but please do not belittle and threaten other editors, as you have done here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the talk page, Sherlock. I raised these problems three weeks ago and I see they have not been addressed. I see for example we still have "off of". This is the writing of a ninth grader. It is not of Featured Article quality. Please fix it. --The Huhsz (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, regarding your own prose edits, which introduced a host of problems into the article, can you please list some of these problems? Thanks in advance. --The Huhsz (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

While we are witing for Midnightblueowl to answer, well done to Red King who fixed the ninth-grader mistake which had been restored to the article by a no-doubt well-intentioned editor trying to defend the article and its mistakes, for reasons of their own. Now, here's another fairly easy one. There are twenty-five instances of "although"; here's a sample: Some of these chambers were constructed out of timber, although others were built using large stones, now known as "megaliths". This is more of an eleventh-grader mistake, to be fair, but it is a mistake nonetheless. If we fix these, will they be restored to the article again? --The Huhsz (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia:Civility. Writing in a respectful manner towards your fellow editors is not optional. Do not compare them to children and certainly do not threaten them. As for issues that your edits introduced to the article, I'd point to this edit. Here you have removed text specifying who Robin Holgate and Caroline Malone were; generally speaking, in highly ranked Wikipedia articles, it's a rule of thumb that a person's disciplinary background be mentioned. That same edit also changed "Many archaeologists have suggested" to "It has been suggested", which removed the agency of the scholars in question. Nothing major, granted, but these changes were not improvements. If you have other suggestions about how you think the prose can be improved, then fine. Raise them here. But don't go about insulting people while you do it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I am awfully sorry for anybody's tender ego that has been damaged by pointing out how poor those edits were, and how they damaged the quality of the article. Never mind. Those were very minor quibbles and it might have been better to just undo those that you were unhappy with (or discuss them here!) rather than make a blanket revert that restored ninth-grade errors (or, per Red King, a "silly vernacular English typo") to a (supposedly) Featured Article. Another problem that our absent friend restored with his revert was the hard-coded image sizes; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images we don't do that, and MoS compliance is, I think, still a requirement for Featured Articles. Well done though Midnightblueowl for the work you are now doing to repair the damage Amakuru caused with the revert. On civility; if you want to get the best from all editors, don't revert their hard work which you acknowledge is (mostly) an improvement, then ignore their talk-page suggestions for weeks, leaving the article in a poor state for a long period. Never mind; there is no deadline and I am sure this article is savable if we can work better together. --The Huhsz (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@The Huhsz: Midnightblueowl does not wp:OWN this article, nor do they claim to do so – your finger-pointing is neither necessary nor appropriate. There is no difference between this and any other article: editors can correct and improve at any time and don't need to make a big drama out of it, as you are doing, and rather rudely at that. My own experience is that constructive edits have been welcomed. The main contributors' expertise is in archaeology, not English grammar: the errors are trivial and the essential information about the site and its context is clear and competent. You made a heavy-handed edit that Amakuru reverted: rather than learn from it, you decided to attack. I suggest that you take time to reflect, starting with working out how much effort is to develop a new article, research and record all the citations, then distil a one page accessible-to-nonspecialists summary out of a number of very technical monographs, journal articles and academic publications: I assure you that the answer is 'a great deal'. Many people can copy-edit, original content is rather more difficult. --Red King (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

And while I think of it, passive voice is deprecated: I for one will always tag expressions like "It has been suggested" with {{by whom}} and suspect wp:weasel wording. --Red King (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem with anything you have said. You're right that nobody owns this article. I agree too that the essential info in the article is excellent. The difficulty is in what editors can correct and improve at any time looks like in reality; it ideally shouldn't look like a blanket revert that restores poor language to the article. This discourages improvement and makes it look like an OWN situation. I think I'm happy now that normal editing is ongoing, and again I apologise if I dealt with the unfortunate revert in a heavy-handed or ill-tempered way. As regards original content I know what you mean; it's a lot of hard work, but that should not preclude reasonable improvements of language. Now, let's get on with making this article merit its bronze star. --The Huhsz (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)