Talk:Hillforts in Scotland

Hillforts in Scotland has been listed as one of the Art and architecture 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.
Review: April 23, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scottish Islands Low‑importance

	Scottish islands portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands in Scotland 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.Scottish IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Scottish IslandsScottish Islands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Fortifications / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) 18:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this in the next few days. James^x12345 18:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on.--SabreBD (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this article is somewhat fragmented across Hillforts in Britain and List of hill forts in Scotland. I think if the former was moved to Hillforts in England and the latter merged into this article there would be an improvement in terms of navigability.

A bit out of the scope of the review. I think having a separate list does stop this article getting out of hand and both separate lists and British and Scottish articles on a topic are a common format.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - I am happy to accept there being a separate list, but there is no point in working on this article (from your perspective) if it is to be the subject of a merge discussion in a short time. Moving Hillforts in Britain to Hillforts in England and not leaving a redirect would make more sense to me. I won't push the issue any further, because as you say it is not necessary for the purposes of this review. James^x12345 15:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The intro needs a bit of copy-editing. Links to hill fort and Scotland, as well as some mention of when and by whom they were built. The history of study is less important, I think, and could make its own separate section. James^x12345 15:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hillfort is linked in the first instance outside of the bold title. Scotland is not usually linked as it is a common geographical term.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"introduced" - were they from somewhere else? I can't think of a better word.

I cannot either at the moment. Perhaps I will come back to that one.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Clyde-Forth line..." - southern Scotland would be clearer.

It is easier to understand, but not as precise. This is the term used time and again in the literature, but if you insist I will change it.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of "largest, mostly, most, many, some" - potentially weasel words.

Any alternative suggestions? We are dealing with a lot of uncertainties here.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The refs are all books, so harvnb would look a lot nicer (IMHO.) That said, there is some variety that would be best gotten rid of in how refs are implemented. James^x12345 15:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"with a close relationship to Roman constructions" - I don't fully understand this in context. Does it mean those that have been used/ modified by Romans?

I added an explanation in parenthesis.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 2 of Early studies could use a few more refs. If ref 2 covers everything, implementing it a few more times as per the previous paragraph would look better.

Done.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link Palisade

Done.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"can also be found" - redundant. More info would avoid having to say this.

Done.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section Classification and function seems to move beyond the scope of the title. A section on Construction might be possible.

Not sure what is wanted here. Do you want to get rid of this section?--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James^x12345 16:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part II

Sorry for the delay in doing this. James^x12345 21:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"some of which may have been a response to Roman siege warfare." - this could do with a ref.
- Its Cuncliffe at the end of the next sentence.--SabreBD (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"some seem to have" - "archaeological evidence suggests" (presumably) is less hedging.
- Done--SabreBD (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"r. c." - is that similar to fl.? I can't say I've heard it used in this context before.
- Its "reigned circa".--SabreBD (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The template is a great solution. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The format of the references appears to be consistent, but the bibliography is redundant. My preference when citing books is to use {{harvnb}}, but you might have something else.
- This is my preferred compromise.--SabreBD (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BCE/CE anomalous in a Scottish context

In Scottish archaeology (and British archaeology more generally), BC/AD is the common way to refer to dates before and after the (putative) birth of Jesus of Nazareth. 94.10.31.227 (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]