Talk:Stanton Drew stone circles/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 18:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full comments up by later today. Dana boomer (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Monument, "All are of different heights, the back stone being 4.4 metres (14 ft) the south western 3.1 metres (10 ft), and the north eastern 1.4 metres (4 ft 7 in)." This sentence is a little confusing, as you give a general direction ("back") for one stone and compass directions for the other two, making it hard to picture how the stones are arranged.

Changed. The "back" is to the north east of the other two (and nearest the great circle).— Rod ^talk 08:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Monument, check capitalization. Sometimes the directions of the stones/stone circles are capitalized, and sometimes they aren't, sometimes "the cove" is capitalized and sometimes it isn't.~~

Standardised "The Cove" in caps as it is a "proper name". I don't see the issue with the directions - where using north east, south west etc as a title for a circle they are capitalised, but as far as I can see when used for a direction in lower case.— Rod ^talk 08:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
What makes ref #20 (Artetech Publishing) a reliable source?

On this page they claim to be a publisher converting their back catalogue into ebooks for iPads. I can look for another source to cover this if needed?— Rod ^talk 19:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it doesn't really even look like the site is published by Artetech. See where it says "[These pages] have been prepared for the [Megalithic] Society by Prof. / Dr. Terence Meaden." Is Meaden an expert in this field? Dana boomer (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this site he is an academic at Oxford who has written two relevant books, however I've added a couple more refs to try to support this claim. I'd be happy to get rid of the subjective "impressive" and just go with 2nd largest in the UK.— Rod ^talk 07:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ref #22 ("Stanton Drew – now 1000 years older") is a dead link.~~

Archive version added.— Rod ^talk 08:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to see more reliable sources for the information covered by refs 25 and 27 (Gordon Strong and StonePages), but as they're sourcing folklore and mystical theories, I don't think it's a huge deal.

I always have problems with fringe theories. If you don't include them it is not comprehensive, but if you do you can't find reliable sources, so I've add more refs (including an English Heritage one) so that there is (a bit) better evidence for the theories.— Rod ^talk 15:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I would be interested to see a ref for the third paragraph of Geophysical survey, although I don't think it's anything too controversial.~~

I have reused the 2010 survey ref as it covers all the claims in that sentence.— Rod ^talk 16:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bibliography section appears to be a mixture of references and further reading. Could we separate these out to make it more clear for the reader what is being referencing and what is just there for further information?

Now seperated into Bibliograhy (used in the reference list) and Further reading (not used).— Rod ^talk 19:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything in the "further reading" sources that could be used to expand the article at all? I'm just curious, because with over half a dozen books written on the topic, the article is only 20 kb long, and there are a lot of "probably"s and "maybe"s and such used in the article. Do the books have other theories? Further development of the theories of funerary rites or planetary alignment?

Not that I'm aware of some of them are very obscure and not available via my local library. The ones I have looked at don't have anything more to add. As stated above fringe theories are always difficult to find reliable sources for (I have very similar issues in the GA review of Glastonbury Tor.— Rod ^talk 19:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
File:Stanton drew1886.jpg could really use a proper source. Obviously the uploader didn't create the postcard, but probably scanned it from somewhere - it would be nice to know where that somewhere was.

I've not been able to find anything further on this image & the user who uploaded it User:OrangeHat has not been active on wp since 2009.— Rod ^talk 16:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
A couple of prose niggles, a few questions on the references, and one image issue. Otherwise, the article is in quite good shape, so I am placing the review on hold. Dana boomer (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for getting to this a bit later than expected. I've struck almost everything as completed, but just have one further question regarding one of the sources. Dana boomer (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm convinced on the last point. Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA. Dana boomer (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]