Talk:Hengistbury Head

Hengistbury Head has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 19, 2013	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 4, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protected areas Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dorset Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dorset, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics connected with Dorset. If you would like to participate, you can visit the WikiProject Dorset project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.DorsetWikipedia:WikiProject DorsetTemplate:WikiProject DorsetDorset articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

rare species??

Nobody's stopping you from adding them. adamsan 19:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Megalith

I've created a new template for megalithic sites, Template:Megalith, as used on Pikestones and Round Loaf. Some instructions on the template talk page, to show how to use it. Cheers! --PopUpPirate 13:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Channel as a river valley?

Surely not this far west 12500 years ago?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Tranchant (talk • contribs) 08:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence would suggest it. And don't call me Shirley. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improving this article

I would love to hear from anyone out there interested in collaborating on improving this article. It could be easily expanded, the Head is a fascinating site from an historical and ecological point of view. It regular hosts educational field trips for schoolchildren but unfortunately the page here doesn't reflect the wealth of knowledge to be learned from study of the site.
I've made a small start (see Flora and Fauna section), but I lack the skills to bring this up to, say, Featured Article status (which Hengistbury Head could and should have!).
Hillbillyholiday81 (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly (isn't it always the case) I am too busy in real life and other Wikipedia efforts to offer much help in terms of editing. But I will offer my opinion, and hope that is helpful.

Not sure whether the site should be considered of mid-importance to the project. As a comparison, Kimmeridge is also mid-importance.
"The name" to "Toponymy" or "Etymology".
"History" might be better without some of the sub-headers.
"Geology and erosion" > "Geology" (erosion as a topic under this).

My thoughts so far. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help Master. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another critical thing to work on is the references. These should ideally be formed using the appropriate template {{cite web}} | {{cite news}}. I've converted a number myself, just to give an idea. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Black House

The involvement of the Black House in smuggling is doubtful to say the least, my understanding is it dates from 1848 which would be too late, the story about it being painted black as a result of smuggling being apocryphal though I think it is fair that the stories should be included but made clear they are unlikely to be true. I don't think the Black house web page can be regarded as a reliable source in respect to its own history. See Battle of Mudeford for more information about smuggling around Christchurch. Many thanks for your excellent work by the way. Phil Whiston (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Phil. It's getting there! I've tidied the Black House bits up a bit but it still needs another reference to clarify things. Where did you hear 1848? Funny how it's easier to find information about the Paleolithic than the Georgian/Victorian period some times! Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to work out where the 1848 date came from myself, it's on the Mudeford page, it is referenced but to a book that is still copyright, might see if I have time to look it up in a library.Phil Whiston (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have done a bit more digging and found this in a Dorset County Council report, "Like nearby Mudeford Quay, the Sandbank has a notable maritime pedigree. Quite apart from the protection it afforded to the Quay itself there is known to have been a shipbuilding history on the spit, of which the last evidence is the Black House. This,built in 1848, appears to have been a workshop and dwelling for shipwrights. J E Holloway, of ironstone mining notoriety and a former mayor of Christchurch, had at least two significant ships built in the area as long ago as the 1840s, the “Viscountess Canning" of 193 tons and the “Enterprise" 253 tons. The area near the Black House also had a small community of actively used fishermen’s huts, of which one is known to have been a canteen. This was lost in the storm of 04 January 1998. There are still three of these on the site, used only for storage at present." http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=74488&filetype=pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,0,792 That seems to tie in with the more authoritative sources, but the smugglers story is a good one it just needs putting in context.Phil Whiston (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good digging! I'll try to squeeze some of this in once i've had a good read of the pdf. Unless you want to do it..? Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

17th, 18th and 19th centuries

I found some problems (my own doing) with the references in this section. Just found a new source that covers this period. It has this additional information, which I'm struggling to transliterate:

A signal station was maintained at Hengistbury Head for a period during the Napoleonic Wars.^[1]

Also this extra detail about Yarranton's plans may be worth inclusion, a block quote perhaps?:

Yarranton, in the course of his interest in the development of the Hampshire Avon in the middle of the 17th Century wrote: "At last I found in the area...great quantities of iron stones lie in a ridge. For in the sea pointing directly upon the Isle of Wight I found the ridge of ironstones was the cause that forced the ground tide about that point (Hengistbury Head) so that it had carried and lodged the sands so as it choked up the harbour. The great advantage is that the King may have all his iron made and guns cast at a very cheap rate. "There is the ironstone in the sea at the harbour mouth and the King hath vast quantities of wood decayed in the New Forest. If two furnaces be built about Ringwood to cast guns and two forges to make iron and the iron be brought from the harbour mouth off the sea up the river to the furnaces, and the charcoal out of the New Forest to the works there be sufficient of decayed wood to supply four iron works for ever."^[2]

^ Cross, D. A. E. (1963). Man and the Christchurch Avon (PDF). p. 12.
^ Cross, D. A. E. (1963). Man and the Christchurch Avon. p. 7.

-- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Alan Hayden, who has spent over twenty years painting the Head and surrounding area

Poor Alan. He must be shattered. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk

A big job indeed. I wonder what colour it was originally? Eric Corbett 21:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...BLACK -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk

"We crawl on our knees... towards our doom!", allegedly. Or is that just on Wikipedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at painting it myself, but like so many of my projects it remains unfinished. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Losing count of the number of WP policies that breaches (but it's very good). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 10:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to take on this review. On first inspection it seems to be a well-written article and I look forward to reading it in greater detail. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

The lead section is very short compared to the length of the article. The MOS suggests it should briefly cover the aspects of the subject mentioned in the body of the text. It does not normally need to include any references because the facts concerned will be cited in the main text.

Expanded. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

Although the lead mentions the "English county of Dorset", the section called Location could be a bit more specific about its location to help readers from say Australia, who might not be familiar with British geography.

I certainly see your point, but finding it currently rather difficult to phrase it. For the meantime I've added more on its location in terms of nearest settlements and county boundaries. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

"Two ingots discovered at this time revealed importing of raw materials to the area" - This sentence could be improved.

Attempted to reword. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

There is a "citation needed" tag in the "Iron Age" section.

I've removed the comment altogether, it isn't essential for a discussion of the site. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

In the section "17th, 18th and 19th centuries" I think you should introduce the word "quarry" near the beginning of the third paragraph as it is currently unclear that the stone was being removed on a commercial scale.

Attempted to reword. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

In the "Present day" section, there are not many references.

Put in a few more. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

The names of birds should be consistent with regard to their capitalisation.

Skylarks was the only non-capitalised instance I could find, and corrected. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it is a nice, well-balanced article. I have made a few minor corrections, mostly missing words, which you can reverse if you want to. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, and the positive comments—it's been a collaborative effort with a number of people, but I was encouraged to submit for review by an editor more involved than myself. I've addressed most of the points, but will try to finish the rest very shortly. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the all feedback, and thanks to MOHOD for nominating. When I first came upon this article on 13 March, it was quite small and seemed to be missing lots of information. This was my first serious contribution to WP, and it feels like ages ago already! Fwiw, I was conceived in one of the beach-huts, and as such, I consider myself "King of Hengistbury Head". You can often see me there telling people to "get orff my laaand.." -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 08:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Criteria

1a The article is well written.
1b The article conforms with the MOS guidelines and has been recently improved by the enlargement of the lead section.
2a&b After some improvements, the article is now satisfactorily referenced.
2c There is no original research as far as I can see.
3a&b The coverage is broad enough and the article does not include irrelevant material.
4 The article is neutral.
5 The article has been enlarged and improved by a group of editors since early March 2013. There is no edit warring.
6 The images are mostly appropriately licensed but one is in the public domain having been created over one hundred years ago.
7 The images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions.
Overall assessment -
- I now feel the GA criteria are met. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Hengistbury Head. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hengistbury Head. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Cross, D. A. E. (1963). Man and the Christchurch Avon (PDF). p. 12.

[2] Cross, D. A. E. (1963). Man and the Christchurch Avon. p. 7.

[1]

[2]