Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freston (causewayed enclosure)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 October 2024 [1].

Freston (causewayed enclosure)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another Neolithic site in England, this one being investigated by a Canadian research team, for some reason; only one excavation so far, so not a lot of findings to report, which is a pity as there's a possible Neolithic longhouse or Anglo-Saxon hall in part of the site, which I'm sure the team are keen to get to. The article has had a very helpful pre-FAC review from UndercoverClassicist. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sawyer777

[edit]

very exciting, always happy to see archaeology at FAC! i can commit to a review for this in the next few days. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

initial suggestions/comments:

overall the prose and such is great, not many issues at all. i think i'll do a source review for this as well - if i've not done that by sunday, ping me. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
source review
[edit]

in terms of source quality, no complaints. especially for more rural/"obscure" sites like this, these (archaeological journals, books/chapters from university presses, government trust reports, &c.) are definitely the best kinds of sources one can find. if necessary i have real-life access to most of these, but not immediately on my laptop.

comments:

  • Palmer (1976) is referenced but not listed in the bibliography. as far as i can tell, this is the only citation with this issue

a spot-check is probably unnecessary what with how many FAs you have, but just for good measure:

  • 10 (Curwen 1930) - good
  • 14a (Carter et al. 2021) - good
  • 20 (Martin 2007) - good, quote matches up
  • 32 (Wilson 1975) - good
  • 47 (Schofield et al. 2021) - good
  • 49 (Carter et al. 2021) - good

... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- have fixed Palmer. I can send you a copy of Curwen if you need it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, sorry lol i forgot to put the "good" down for Curwen initially. now that we have Palmer 1976, support. :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 13:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Another archaeology one, I'll be sure to review soon. Hog Farm Talk 23:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for how long it took to get to this; work got busiser than I expected.
Supporting, I read through it and had no concerns from a non-expert perspective. Hog Farm Talk 22:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, HF; I appreciate the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

Just some random comments for now.

  • Freston is a causewayed enclosure,[4] a form of earthwork that was built in northwestern Europe, including the southern British Isles, in the early Neolithic period. I'd drop "including the southern British Isles". It's a long complicated sentence, and given that the entire article is about something in the southern British Isles, that goes without saying.]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The causeways are difficult to explain in military terms does the source actually say they're difficult to explain, or is that you editorializing?
    The sources do make this point. For example, Cunnington says "It is very difficult to see why the frequent openings in the entrenchment should have been left, when apparently they must weaken it so materially, if it was intended for purposes of defence ... [one theory is] that they had some distinct purpose in the scheme of defence; that they were, indeed, a strengthening and not a weakening factor in this seemingly not very strongly-defended place". She goes on to give other possibilities, including the sally port suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also evidence that they played a role in funeral rites, you need to go back to the previous paragraph to be sure what "they" is referring to; probably better to be more specific here.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • material such as food, pottery, and human remains was deliberately deposited I think this is grammatically correct in a strict way, but it reads funny. The subject of "was" is "material", so it's correct to use the singular form of the verb, but at first scan you see "human remains was" which is jarring. Can this be rephrased to avoid that?
    Had a go at this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • they were built in a single operation what evidence is there for this? I assume the source says so, but enquiring readers will want more.
    The source doesn't say so -- the statement comes in the concluding summary of an article about causewayed enclosures, and doesn't cite a source or give more explanations. I think the source is strong enough to include this, even without further explanation, though I agree I'd like to be able to say more on the point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since these are found in both continental Europe and the British Isles, the obvious question is how did they get across the water, by whom, and when, and in which direction? I see you touch on this briefly at the ends of the "Background" and "Site" sections, but I think it deserves going into more and earlier in the article.
    I'm not sure I agree -- this is an article about a specific causewayed enclosure, after all, not about the whole class of causewayed enclosures. There's already a fair bit of text in the article that is not specific to this particular site (compare Great Wilbraham (causewayed enclosure) and you'll see what I mean) and I'd rather not go further in that direction if I don't have to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The enclosure is 8.55 ha (21.1 acres) in area, "in area" is redundant.
    That was added in the pre-FAC review on the article talk page, so I'd like to leave it there and see if other reviewers have an opinion one way or another. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four sherds of pottery were found link sherds -> Glossary of archaeology#potsherd
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All responded to; thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments...

  • The Discovery, fieldwalking, and watching briefs section starts out a bit oddly with it not being found in 1944. I'd lead with the key idea, i.e. "The site was discovered in 1969", and then fill in the details about it not being found on earlier photos. Any idea why it wasn't seen in the 1944 photos? Were the 1969 images higher quality? It's also not clear what happened between 1966 and 1969; was there was one set of photos in 1966 and another set in 1969, or were the 1966 photos re-examined three years later using better techniques?
    I can do this if you really think it's necessary, but I like the directly chronological approach, rather than having to step back in time in the second sentence to 1944. To answer your question, the source says there was no sign of earthworks or cropmarks. The article says further down that the earthworks were long gone by the 20th century, and cropmarks are often only visible in very dry conditions, so if the 1944 photos were taken when it wasn't very dry the cropmarks would not have been there. The 1966 photos were taken for the Ordnance Survey and not as part of a search for cropmarks, and nobody noticed the evidence on them. At some point, no later than 1995, someone went back and looked for earlier photos and found the 1966 ones, and realized that the site was identifiable if anyone had paid attention. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be outside the scope of WP:FACR, but I wonder if just plain Freston causewayed enclosure would be a better title, per WP:PARENDIS? Looking at Category:Causewayed enclosures I see people have done it both ways, so no strong feeling either way here.
    The sources don't tend to append "causewayed enclosure" to the name, which is why I haven't named the articles I've written that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a group from McMaster University organized ... a pedestrian survey This is in the lead, but I don't see anything in the body that talks about a pedestrian survey. Or is this what you refer to as "fieldwalking"? If so, it would be helpful to non-expert readers (like me!) to either use the same term in both places, or explain the linkage.
    Added "(surveying the site on foot)" after the first use in the body. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Freston is about 13 km (8 mi) from the sea; it would have been about 18 km (11 mi) from the sea at the start of the Neolithic. Why did this change by 5km? I'm guessing rising sea levels, but it would be good to explain that.
    The source doesn't say but it's sure to be sea level changes. I can probably find a source that says something about sea levels in the Neolithic, and might be able to use that, but I'm slightly hesitant about possible synth problems. I'll see what I can find and will report back. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My first look didn't come up with anything I can cite, but this does imply that sea level is the reason -- the North Sea was low enough for Doggerbank to be above water only 2,000 years before the enclosure at Freston was constructed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC

[edit]

Good to see this here. I will chip in, though it might be wise to wait until we have a few more reviews (as I left comments on a recent draft): let me know if a good moment comes up, otherwise I'll keep my eye on the page. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist, I think this would be a good time if you have more comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ask and you shall receive...
  • near the village of Freston, in Suffolk, England: since we've got the in, we don't want the preceding comma.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • from shortly before 3700 BC until at least 3500 BC: consider from shortly before 3700 until...: the one BC can cover both, especially as there's not yet been an AD 3700.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Freston enclosure was first identified from cropmarks in aerial photographs in 1969: consider first identified in 1969: I think it's neater and more grammatical, and clarifies that the identification was in 1969, not (just) the photographs. Nit-picking, but I don't think we actually say this in the body: we have In 1969 J. K. St Joseph, who ran the Cambridge University Committee for Aerial Photography (CUCAP) program for many years, took aerial photographs that recorded cropmarks in the northern part of the site, but that doesn't actually confirm that anyone noticed that the photographs showed those cropmarks.
    The wording in the source is slightly odd: Dyer says (after mentioning the earlier photographs) "The site is generally accepted as being discovered in 1969 during an aerial reconnaissance flight by St Joseph when the site was first intentionally recorded by photography". I think the most natural way to interpret this is that St Joseph's was looking for sites, saw the cropmarks, and hence took a picture, but the "generally accepted" gives me pause enough to have prevented me making that statement directly in the article. The body does currently say "was not discovered until 1969", which I think does mean it was discovered in 1969, but if you think the source wording is definite enough I could reword. Perhaps "Aerial photographs taken by the Royal Air Force in 1944 showed no sign of cropmarks, and although the site was partly visible on photographs taken in 1966 this was not noticed at the time. The site was discovered in 1969 by J. K. St Joseph, who ran the Cambridge University Committee for Aerial Photography (CUCAP) program for many years; he identified it on a reconnaissance flight that year and took aerial photographs that recorded cropmarks in the northern part of the site." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that source definitely puts the identification in 1969, so how about "first identified in 1969, from cropmarks..." UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done in the lead. After thinking about it some more I've made the change I proposed above in the body. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cropmarks show an enclosure with two circuits of ditches, and a palisade that ran between the two ditches: between the two circuits? We imply that there may have been more than one ditch in a circuit (which seems to be true, from the map)
    Done; also in the body. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider a link to Survey (archaeology) on "pedestrian survey" and to Geophysical survey (archaeology) on "geophysical survey".
    Both added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other finds included oak charcoal fragments that suggested the palisade had been made of oak: how about oak charcoal fragments, believed to come from the palisade? Seems to be stating the obvious at the moment.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence of attacks at some sites provided support for the idea that the enclosures were fortified settlements.: hm -- there's pretty good evidence of attacks at Omaha beach, but I'm not sure that provides any evidence that it was a settlement. Perhaps a problem for the sources rather than the article, as long as those are unequivocal that fortification implies settlement status.
    The section of Whittle et al. that I am citing is an overview of causewayed enclosures in Britain; this particular paragraph starts by talking about the long history of multiple interpretations for them. After going through some of the assertions about them having been settlements, they say "Fortifications and defence, originally inferred from superficial similarity to Iron Age hillforts, returned to the fore in the 1980s with evidence for hostilities at sites such as Crickley Hill in Gloucestershire and Hambledon Hill in Dorset", and they cite the articles in which those suggestions were made. I've been taking this sequence as arguing that the fortifications were of the settlements just discussed, but perhaps that's reading too much into the sequence of presentation? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I must admit I'm not seeing that from what you've written, but then you're looking at the source and I'm not. Is anything lost from cutting settlements here, and developing the two strands separately? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cut it and tweaked a little -- I agree they don't have to be connected. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • used for trading cattle or other goods such as pottery: more importantly, its contents, surely? Again, a sources problem rather than an article one, I suspect.
    This is from later in the same summarizing section that I mentioned just above; I'm attempting to summarize a broad-ranging pageful of speculation (though I see that one of the relevant sentences actually starts on the previous page, so I'll amend the citation to say that). Here the relevant bits are "A role in animal herding, prompted by [various evidence] ... The frequency of pottery and lithics from remote sources, sometimes of finer quality and manufacture than local products, suggested that causewayed enclosures were foci for the exchange, consumption and deposition of significant objects ... [After suggesting that a family might have lived in an enclosure] The territory would provide most of the essential resources, such as ... [some] would be obtained by exchange with other groups ..." I picked cattle and pottery as representative examples. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what you've got is reasonable, though perhaps gives more weight to the pottery than is due: as I read the source quoted, the point is that we can see the pottery and the lithics, and therefore infer that there were also other, similarly-valuable goods being passed around that are no longer archaeologically visible. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cut the examples and left it as just "trading"; I think you're right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • as they were built in a single operation: consider as the enclosures were built...: it's been a while since we had the antecedent of they.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • either would make Freston a site of "potentially national importance", according to English Heritage.: do EH (or Historic England, as they now are) elaborate on why this would be so?
    All Martin says is "Two large pits recorded between the structure and enclosure ditches could be either Saxon Sunken Featured Buildings (SFBs) or relate to the Neolithic ditches (Hegarty and Newsome 2004, 66). Either date for the building would make it of potentially national importance." Carter quotes Martin, saying "In either instance it can be viewed as a structure ‘of potentially national importance’ (Martin 2007, 1), given the rarity of such buildings; it would also represent one of the largest known examples of either category" and goes on to say how few causewayed enclosures have Neolithic longhouses inside their perimeter.
    Can we add some of this -- seems to be that the point is that either building would make it an important site on its own, since both are very rare? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a bit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and although the site was partly visible on photographs taken in 1966 this was not noticed at the time.: this is a little clumsy in phrasing, I think. Perhaps Aerial photographs taken by the Royal Air Force in 1944 showed no sign of cropmarks; the site is partly visible in a second series of photographs taken in 1966, but was not noticed at the time.?
    Done, but rather than "second", which might imply to the reader that these were also RAF photographs, I've made it clear they were taken by the OS. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the geophysics survey: usually on the geophysical survey, though admittedly most archaeologists would say geophys in person.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ditch probably predated the causewayed enclosure and may have been dug next to a long barrow, a form of Neolithic burial mound: is this the same mystery structure that might be an Early Medieval hall?
    No -- is this not clear? The building is in the northeast corner of the enclosure and this ditch runs from south of the trench, which is itself on the south side of the site. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably an artefact of me reading it in several parts, and slightly losing the track of where I was -- but perhaps there's room to idiot-proof it a bit more? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am struggling a bit to find a way to say this that isn't just "by the way, this thing isn't that other thing I mentioned earlier". I've added more text to the site image caption, mentioning the long barrow as a separate entity from the longhouse. Does that do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly -- I'm sure most readers will be far more switched-on than me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chapter title of Andersen 2015 is in title case: other book and journal chapter titles seem to be in sentence case. Is there a logic here?
    No, no logic! Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon

[edit]

With the caveats that I am neither an expert in neolithic structures nor a native speaker, I offer the following comments on prose. (My only somewhat relevant claim here is that I have been twice to Bury Ditches.)

That's all. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; all addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • The title looks wrong to me. Freston would normally mean the village rather than the site. Why not Freston causewayed enclosure without the brackets?
    You're the second person to suggest this; I'll move the article, but I'll wait till the FAC is closed to avoid causing a problem with FACbot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A cropmark is an area of a field in which the crops grow differently because of differences in the soil beneath them." This is not quite right as a general definition. Cropmarks often indicate buried walls rather than different soils.
    Added a comment about sunken walls. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a long barrow, a form of early Neolithic burial mound". This is the first use of the term early Neolithic. I think you either need to explain it or describe the site as early Neolithic in the first line of the lead, as you do in the first line of the main text.
    I'm not sure I follow you -- the body is more specific than the lead, after all. A lay reader may baulk at "Neolithic"; I don't want to qualify it further in the lead if I can avoid it, since "early Neolithic" won't help those readers, and just "Neolithic" isn't wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the largest causewayed enclosures known". In Britain or overall? The McMaster site at [2] describes it as "one of the largest Neolithic monuments in Britain".
    The sources only support Britain so I've changed this in the body and the lead; I suspect it is large compared to most of the ones in Europe too, but I don't have the sources to support that and can't remember where I saw it or thought I saw it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neolithic practices began to reach Britain in about 4050 BC". "Neolithic practices" is vague. As you will know, genetic evidence shows that it was Neolithic farmers who migrated to Britain at this time and replaced Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.
    I could make it something like "Neolithic practices, such as pottery and farming, began to reach ..." but strictly this isn't in the source, which has "Perhaps unsurprisingly, given its proximity to the mainland, the initial colonisation (‘Earliest Neolithic’) appears to have entered southeast England around 4050 cal BC (Fig. 1). Neolithic subsistence and other practices thereafter moved into south central England (‘Early Neolithic’) by the second half of the 38th century cal BC". Of course this is a reference to the Neolithic "package" of various practices that all appeared at the same time, but I would have to add another reference for that, so long as we think it's not SYNTH to do so? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the seafaring groups that crossed from mainland Europe". I have not come across "seafaring groups" in this context before. Do you mean that they were seafarers rather than farmers who migrated to Britain?
    No, it was just intended to say that they crossed by sea, so had to have some seafaring ability. I made it "the groups that crossed by sea from mainland Europe". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aerial photographs taken by the Royal Air Force in 1944 showed no sign of cropmarks". I thought cropmarks are normally only visible during droughts. Is this correct and could it be why they were not visible then?
    I think cropmarks can occasionally be visible other than in times of drought, but yes, my understanding is that drought is when you get to see them. Dyer doesn't say anything about the 1944 photos other than that the cropmarks are not visible, so I don't think I can say more, but presumably there was not a drought at the time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Saxon sunken-featured buildings". Perhaps Anglo-Saxon is better. Saxon may refer to the Continental people.
    I'd like to stick with "Saxon" as that's how both the sources have it. Looking at Google Scholar it seems "Saxon" is at least as common as "Anglo-Saxon" when discussed these buildings. Perhaps they are also found on the continent so it's a term of art that is not restricted to Britain? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent whether to abbreviate and convert terms such as metre, e.g. 70 m (230 ft) but two metres. It is a matter of personal preference (I prefer always spelling out) but I think it is better to be consistent.
    Now consistent; I decided to abbreviate all of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the final paragraph beginning "Radiocarbon" belongs in the 'Site' section.
    Moved. I'm not entirely sure about this, since the radiocarbon dates depend on the site finds, but I see why you suggest the move, and on balance I agree. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another first class archaeological article from Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! And thanks for the review; all responded to above with a couple of questions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
I don't have much.
  • "sally ports for defenders to emerge from and attack a besieging force.[note 2]" I feel the from in "emerge from" dangles a bit. Maybe "sally ports that defenders could emerge from and ..."
    I see your point; I made it "that defenders could emerge from to ...", which I hope connects the clauses smoothly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is also evidence that the enclosures played a role in funeral rites: food, pottery, and human remains have all been found deliberately deposited in the ditches.[11] The construction of these sites would have required substantial labour for clearing the land, preparing trees for use as posts or palisades, and digging the ditches, and would probably have been planned for some time in advance, as they were built in a single operation." The sentences of this paragraph don't feel connected, and the second sentence feels more general than the first. I guess I expect a paragraph to start with the general and work its way to the specific.
    The "also evidence" is meant to be a reference to the "Evidence of attacks" in the previous paragraph; I think this sentence was moved to the next paragraph to avoid a short paragraph of one sentence. I've moved it back and have now joined the remaining sentence with the following paragraph. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "either would make Freston a site of "potentially national importance"" Given the string of cites that followed, I think it would be helpful to the reader to say who is asserting this.
    The quote is from Martin (2007), who did the geophysical survey for English Heritage; the quote is then given verbatim in Carter et al. (2022). I decided to use the quote because Carter repeats it, so giving it more support, but although he supports it I think I just have to cite Martin as the source. I've done that -- let me know if that's enough or if you think Carter should be mentioned too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review; changes made and a couple of notes above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Freston_(causewayed_enclosure)/archive1&oldid=1251947469"