Talk:Parc Cwm long cairn/GA1

GA Review

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

Layout: seems logical although I think that the history section should be immediately after the lead. It provides some background to the construction of the cairn.

Done. Daicaregos (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation: there's at least one instance where Neolithic isn't capitalised, and I don't think medieval needs to start with a capital. "Red fox; Arctic fox; Brown bear; Tundra vole; and possibly Reindeer", apart from Arctic fox, I don't think any need to be capitalised.

Neolithic and medieval - Done.

I've amended all initial names to lower case. MOS:CAPS#Animals, plants, and other organisms says that both styles are acceptable (beginning the common names of species with a capital letter). However, the WP:FA List of wild mammal species of Florida has Red Deer. Perhaps we should go for whatever is in the referenced article. i.e. Red Fox; Arctic Fox ; Brown Bear; Tundra Vole; and possibly reindeer. Also, in the next sentence - mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, Red Deer and Giant Deer. Daicaregos (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imitation is certainly a good idea, if FAs do , go for it. Nev1 (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Daicaregos (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon: it's fair to say that there will only be two main types of people who read this article, archaeologists/historians and locals interested in their history. The article generally avoids using jargon, and does so well, but it would be useful "long cairn" at the end of the history section, before the mention of the pyramids. For minor terms such as coursing, a wikilink is fine, but long barrows are more important to this article. Using cromlech and dolmen is confusing, although they are synonymous; best to stick with dolmen as that's a more specific term I think.

Please clarify what you would like to see for "long cairn" at the end of the history section. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something like "Long cairns, also called long barrows (they are, aren't they?), are Neolithic monuments. They are rectangular or trapezoidal earth mounds traditionally interpreted as collective tombs" (adapted from the long barrow wiki page). If long cairns are essentially long barrows, long cairn should redirect there rather than to this article. Nev1 (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long Cairn redirection amended - Done. Daicaregos (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barrow and Cairn defined - Done. Daicaregos (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done too. Nev1 (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both references to dolmen have been removed. I chose to stay with cromlech. It is used throughout to article and as it is a Welsh word it is more relevant to the subject than dolmen. Daicaregos (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Nev1 (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you explain that Severn–Cotswold type tombs originated in continental Europe, it would be good to state what distinguishes the type from other tombs.

Done. Daicaregos (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would be really useful is a plan of the site. If there are any old ones, they might be out of date and you'd be able to scan them in and put them straight into the article. If not, there are some editors who can redraw the plan for use in the article if you give them a plan to work from. I can't remember where to make requests, but User:GameKeeper or User:Jza84 may be able to point you in the right direction.

Couldn't find a plan. If I were to draw a plan from this image, with labels, would that be WP:OR?

Since you've not been able to find anything else, there's no harm in redrawing that image and labeling it yourself. Nev1 (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(RCAHMW 1976a, (36) 34–35; Evans 2002) appears in the features section, but does not correspond to anything in the references section.

Done. Daicaregos (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When giving a date range in BP, shouldn't the older date go first? (ie: 6400–5850BP rather than 5850–6400BP)

Done. Daicaregos (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mention "Whittle and Wysocki (1998)", I'd recommend turning this into a wiki style reference.

Done. Daicaregos (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compound verbs such as agrarian–based should use a hyphen (-) rather than a dash (–), the same for names such as Aldhouse–Green.

Done. Daicaregos (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the conversion template should be more widespread, it means you don't have to do any calculations.

Not sure what to do here. WP:MOS says single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words. However, conversion template only works with numerals. Please advise. Daicaregos (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOS also states "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures" (it's full of contradictions and is far too complicated IMO)

References: you put them all at the end of each paragraph. This is fine, although it would be easier for the reader to see where information comes from if the references where placed after sentence/fact it relates to (there's no need for a reference every sentence though as I've seen some people try to do!).

Done. Daicaregos (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is a very good article. The content is good, covering all the main points of the subject, and importantly the long cairn is given context and analysis. The issues raised above are minor and generally relate to formatting formatting. I'm putting the article on hold until some of these are addressed. Nev1 (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]