Talk:Falkner's Circle/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 09:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoy these articles, so happy to review this one. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Langdean Bottom" - as we don't have a wikilink for this one, could I suggest that you specify a nearby village or something?

The Langdean Bottom stones aren't actually in a village specifically, but in farmland. The nearest village would be West Overton, so I'll add a reference to that settlement at this juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the two Avenues connected to it" You've only mentioned one so far, I think? Could you specify these?

The other is the Beckhampton Avenue. I've added a mention of it and a Wikilink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the Sanctuary or The Sanctuary?

In this context, perhaps we should go with the lower-case "the". I know that there is some policy stating that band names like "the Beatles" should use a lower-case "the" at Wikipedia, so that probably applied here as well. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are "West Kennet palisades"?

I think that this is the same thing as the West Kennet Avenue. I'll switch "palisades" here to "Avenue" to avoid confusion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean shard rather than sherd?

No, sherd is the correct archaeological term for a small piece of broken pottery; I think that shard only refers to broken glass (and the big tower in central London, of course). I'll Wikilink "sherd". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does "flecking" mean? Is that archaeological jargon?

I don't think it's archaeological jargon per se, as I've heard it used in reference to painting as well. I could add a link to the Wikidictionary page here? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Smith related coming upon the site in the late 1870s, he began to investigate with Long's assistance." Comma splice? Either way, this isn't really a well-formed sentence.

You're right; that doesn't work at all. I've added "after which" to make the sentence function. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Long source definitely called Abury, and not Avebury?

Yes, it's definitely "Abury". As far as I understand it, that was how the place-name was commonly spelled for quite a long time. It seems to have become "Avebury" by the early 20th century, although I'm not quite sure when the change was made (or why). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you fill out the references in the further reading section? Or, better still incorporate them as references?

I've partially filled out these references; I've not yet been able to determine the precise chapter title that is being cited in the Victoria County History volume, nor its specific author. Unfortunately I don't think either of these books are available online, at least not yet, so until I can see a hard copy I won't be able to draw upon them for this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a category for its status as a scheduled monument?

Yes we could! Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The final line of the article suggests that there's potentially a questionmark over its status as a stone circle - is that a fair reading? If so, I wonder whether we might be wrong to present it unproblematically as a stone circle?

Difficult one. No one seems to be explicitly stating that they don't think it was a stone circle, so I think it would perhaps be unnecessary to make changes in this area. If, however, a serious argument appears in future that puts forward the proposal that it was not a stone circle then we would definitely need to reflect that ambiguity. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some copyediting; please double-check. I'll want to have another look through, I think, but I can't see this not being promoted in due course... Josh Milburn (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, Josh, your time and attention is much appreciated! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]