Talk:The Trundle

The Trundle is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 15, 2022.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 28, 2021	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Sussex Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex 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.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related 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

Requested move 9 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was proposed in this section that Trundle (hill fort) be renamed and moved to The Trundle.

result:
Moved. No objections raised; treating as a WP:BOLD move. (closed by non-admin page mover) -2pou (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links: current log • target log • direct move

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Trundle (hill fort) → The Trundle – This is the usual name in reliable sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Planned expansion

I'm hoping to work on this article over the next couple of months and possibly take it to FAC, so this is just a heads up to any other interested editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"A chapel to St Roche". This looks wrong to me. Maybe "A chapel dedicated to St Roche" as below.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Causewayed enclosures are a form of early Neolithic earthwork that were built in England". I am not sure any change is needed, but they are also in Wales. See [1]. Below you say in British Isles.
I tried some rewording -- the difficulty is the date range represents when they were built in England; the date range for the continent is broader. I could also make this the southern British Isles here if that would help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Causewayed enclosures are a form of earthwork that was built in northwestern Europe". were built?
Now rephrased per above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"if they were a focus for the local people, they may have been evidence of a local hierarchy with a tribal chief." Why evidence of hierarchy and a chief?
The source cites Colin Renfrew: "Renfrew's identification of each causewayed enclosure in Wessex as the aggregation site for an emerging chiefdom", and also cites Curwen: "perhaps tribal headquarters" and Edmonds: "enclosures may have been arenas in which identity and authority came into being, rather than expressions of pre-existing authority". I was trying to compress this into half a sentence. Whittle et al, which is what I'm citing, is a survey work, so I think if they think it's worth covering I should mention it, but there's not much more detail than that in Whittle. I didn't want to go to Renfrew and the others to get more details because I am not trying to be detailed about the suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the suggestion would make more sense if related to the organisation and labour, if your sources support this. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your periodization of the Iron Age is confusing. First you say that the division is in two, between the two cultures in 5C, and then early iron age ending 600, using the three part division into early, middle and late.
I had trouble with the Iron Age material as I have better sources for the Neolithic, but according to the tracking a copy of Cunliffe on the Iron Age should be arriving today so I'll tweak this then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"an area of 0.95 ha". It is usual to use the convert template for areas and lengths.
I took them out thinking I didn't need them and then put them back in; I think you must have looked at a version in between! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Concentric with this is a second ditch, which was thought by E.C. Curwen (who excavated the site in 1928 and 1930) to spiral out so that the circuit extended more than a full circle around the centre of the enclosure." I do not understand this. It sounds like a confusing way of saying that the two ends of the ditch do not meet.
I'd like to find a clearer way to phrase this. It's more than just not meeting. Take a look at this, plate II (p. 34). You can see that the "second ditch" as Curwen calls it, starts in the southwest quadrant and goes clockwise, spiralling out for about one and a quarter turns. Curwen refers to the last part of that ditch as the "spiral ditch", where it overlaps with the second ditch, at the west side. What would make this clearer? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see the overlapping but that is no doubt my lack of expertise interpreting such photos. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the photo -- scroll down a few pages and you'll see Curwen's diagram, which is much clearer than the photo. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RCHME. I would spell out as few will know what it means.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Oswald comments that "the general obsession with linguistic derivations at that time led to many erroneous interpretations". Does he say that the derivation is unknown?
He doesn't; the full quote is "He suggested that the name of 'The Trundle' derived from the Anglo-Saxon word for a hoop (Allcroft 1916, 75), although the general obsession with linguistic derivations at that time led to many erroneous interpretations." I don't think I can say much more than that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are inconsistent whether you cite E.C. Curwen or just Curwen.
My intention was to make it "E.C. Curwen" on first mention, both in the body and the lead; I've now made that consistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks as always. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The plan showed an inner circuit of interrupted ditches, with a second ditch outside that which spiralled out for more than a full circle, and an outside ditch that was largely overlaid by the later Iron Age earthwork". The inner ditch is obviously the enclosure, but the other two are less clear. The photo shows a second ditch close to the first and a third much further out. Presumably all three are Neolithic? It would be helpful to spell these points out if correct, although I realise you are talking about Curwen's interpretation here.
Yes, but I'm hesitant about saying so at that point in the article, since this is the account of the dig. The Gathering Time analysis found Neolithic dates for all three ditches. Is there somewhere further up that I could make this clearer, so that the reader is definite that the non-rampart earthworks are Neolithic by the time they get to Curwen's account? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just change "The plan" to "His plan". This would emphasise that it was just the view at that date. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Above this was a layer with a very few Hallstatt and La Tène finds". Pottery?
Curwen doesn't specify directly, but since the finds table only identifies the culture for the pottery I've clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Curwen considered that pit 2, from the 1928 dig, corresponded to one of these pits". I am not sure what this means. Was he unsure of the location of a pit he had dug two years earlier?
I've rephrased; is that clearer? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Curwen took the most detailed notes on the contents of pits 11 to 13 in pit 12". Eh?
Rephrased as part of the above edits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Bedwin and Aldsworth investigated the remainder of the ditch". I think you shoud give their full names.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A first rate article, as ever. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; have responded above. Let me know if anything still looks wrong to you. Other than that I think what's left is the question about hierarchy and a chief, which I'll go and read a bit more about before responding, and the Iron Age dates vs. cultures, which I'm waiting to fix till a book arrives. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me apart from the one further comment above. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut the bit about a tribal chief, after looking at the source again; this is pretty speculative, and while it needs to be covered in the causewayed enclosure article, there's no need to go into it in a background section. Still waiting for the Iron Age book to deal with the other point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations

The opening few paragraphs in the introduction have no inline citations, was this done on purpose, or could this be a or a mistake ? The information is all there in the article, why not add duplicate references for the introduction ? Cltjames (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement to cite information in the lead, unless it's controversial, or a direct quotation. However, everything in the lead has to be in the body of the article as well, and it has to be cited there, so everything in the lead does have to have a citation in the body. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]