Jump to content

Talk:Rempstone Stone Circle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rempstone Stone Circle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Also unusually, it is located in a valley." Just a little thing, but the fact that this is unusual is not spelled out in the article proper.
  • "The land on which the site sits is privately owned" Two quick questions; can people nonetheless visit, and does it have any protection? (Can stone circles be listed buildings? I don't know.)
  • "With the exception of the Rempstone circle, all consist of sarsen stone.[13] With the exception of the circle at Litton Cheney, none display evidence of any outlying stones or earthworks around the stone circle." Given that the Rempstone circle is the subject of this article, I wonder if this could be rephrased? How about "The Rempstone circle is exceptional among these, as it is the only one which does not consist of of sarsen stone.[13] However, like all the others—with the exception of the circle at Litton Cheney—it does not display evidence of any outlying stones or earthworks." Just a thought!
  • I confess I don't know what "iron-impregnated" means, so I assume our readers won't. Also, according to our article, gritstone is a type of sandstone; this means "sandstone or gritstone boulders" is a little ambiguous. Do you mean "boulders variously described as sandstone and gritstone", "boulders which are sandstone (specifically, gritstone)" or "boulders which are standstone, including some which are gritstone"? (I appreciate that this is overwordy, so you probably wouldn't want to use my phrases, but some clarification could help.)
    • With "iron-impregnated", I simply followed what the source stated. I assume that it means that bits of iron ore are found within the rock? As it is unclear I shall remove this from the sentence. Regarding gristone/sandstone, I found different sources stating different things, so I'll just keep things to "sandstone" and leave it at that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is Brenscombe Farm? Presumably, adjacent to the circle?
  • "Calkin noted that the stones were made of local sandstone, although were smaller than the stones in the circle, averaging about 2 feet 6 inches by 1 foot 6 inches." Why although?
    • I was trying to juxtapose the fact that the material between the circle stones and the 'procession' stones were the same, while the sizes were different, but I'm not sure it really works. I'll amend the sentence to clarify things. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not fully clear to me what I'm looking at in the lead image; presumably, two of the standing stones in the woodland? A caption may help!
  • Are we going with "Rempstone Stone Circle" (article title and an image caption) or "Rempstone stone circle" (prose and infobox)?
  • "...beliefs can be transferred to sites to which they are not relevant. 1973 it was recorded that the Rempstone Stone Circle near Studland (Dorset) was the result of a failed attempt by the Devil to destroy Corfe Castle by throwing rocks at it, but the circle was only discovered this century." From page 35 of this book; possibly of some use? I don't know.
    • Oh, what a good find! I flicked through a few books dealing with folklore and stone circles (Grinsell etc) and could find no reference to Rempstone in them. I certainly didn't think of looking in Rattue's book (of which I have a copy). I probably should have thought about looking on Google Books too! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In turn Rattue is referencing Harte's 1986 book on Dorset folklore, which I do not have access to at present but I shall obtain a copy asap. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clear and concise; a strong article. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]