Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Knap Hill/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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2020 [1].

Knap Hill

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Neolithic site on a hill in northern Wiltshire. It's a causewayed enclosure, one of the major types of Neolithic earthwork, and is historically interesting as it's the first one that was excavated to the point where the characteristics of a causewayed enclosure could be clearly seen -- an encircling ditch and bank with many more entrances, or causeways, than made sense if the earthworks were for defence. The article has had a very thorough review by Dudley Miles, and is much improved as a result; I believe it's ready for FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • Support. My queries about this first rate article were dealt with in my review.
  • I have one further suggestion. In the first paragraph on Connah, after "into Early and Late Neolithic.", I suggest starting a new paragraph: "In addition to the Windmill Hill ware, pottery from later periods was found in upper layers." You could then delete "they were not associated with the earliest strata" and the reference to upper layers below. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've split the paragraph as suggested, but I left part of the explanation just to be on the safe side. Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mike, no change needed but just clarifying: "The conclusion was that there was a 91% chance that Knap Hill was constructed between 3530 and 3375 BC, and a 92% chance that the ditch had silted up at some time between 3525 and 3220 BC." So this means that it is theoretically possible that the ditch silted up five years after it was constructed? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I thought about trying to get something of this into the article but it's too complicated for easy summarization. Essentially what they produced was a graph showing how likely it was that the silt was accumulating for 1 year, for 2 years, and so on, up to 2500 years. There are two peaks in the graph: 23% chance it was silting up for between 1 and 65 years, and a 45% chance it took between 115 and 280 years. (The 92% number you're quoting from the article is a summarization of this data at a higher level.) The researchers sum up by saying "we believe that a short duration, probably of well under a century, and perhaps only a generation or two, is more plausible". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

[edit]

Looking now....

Otherwise looks pretty comprehensive and well-written - on track for a shiny star....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cas: all done but one, which I'd like to leave as is. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Spotcheck

  • I checked Andersen 2019 for CP.
  • Article: Causewayed enclosures are characterized by […] segmented ditches .
  • Source: The causewayed enclosures […] are characterized by a system of ditches, one or more palisades, and occasionally, banks
    Rephrased to: "Causewayed enclosures are areas that are fully or partially enclosed by segmented ditches...often with earthworks and palisades in some combination". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I find it kinda awkward to have full sentences within parentheses out in the prose—try dashes instead.
That sentence was originally a footnote, but another suggested it needed to be in the main text. I'd prefer to keep the parentheses as they are, if you've no objections; to me dashes are used for thoughts more closely related than this is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • Will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whitesheet Hill is duplinked.
  • I agree some of the maps are unusually large, especially the text under background is squeezed. Would it hurt to put them down to about half size?

With two reviewers complaining, I've bowed to the inevitable and shrunk the maps. A couple are still over 1.8; are they OK at that size? Duplink removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more balanced to me, yeah. And not really much loss of detail. FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd want to know, so probably warrants a footnote? FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Wiltshire at first mention outside intro, and also in infobox image caption.
    I linked it in the body, but the infobox throws a Lua error if I make it [[Wiltshire]] in the location definition. Is there a way around that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have some other higher res photos[2][3] of the hill, why not show one under site, for example?
    Good idea; I cropped one of them, since they're mostly foreground and sky. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Romano-British occupation" Link?
    Linked in the lead; I know this was linked in a prior version but somehow I guess it got erased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and this is probably not by chance." Any theories as to what the purpose was, then?
    Not really! The source says "It must be assumed that the siting of such important monuments was not haphazard, but was conceived and thought through in advance; the distinctive trait could therefore be significant"; here "the distinctive trait" refers to the fact that the sites have striking topography when seen from below, but are only actually visible from higher ground. I read this as saying "it looks like they chose this kind of site deliberately but we don't know why". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The site has been scheduled as an ancient monument." Maybe nice to note when?
    The "designation1_date" parameter would let me do that if I knew the date, but from the Historic England entry I see no clues to when it was listed. Apparently the data was imported from another system and it seems that information didn't make it across, or at least isn't visible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You state the occupation of people you mention in the first two sections, but why stop when you reach Antiquarian and archaeological investigations and onwards?
    It was unconscious but I think probably because I assumed readers would gather these were antiquarians and archaeologists. I would have trouble finding a cite for a description of Phillips; the sources only talk about what he did and not at all about him. I'd guess he was an archaeologist but I don't know. The Cunningtons and Connah could be described as archaeologists, and Aubrey and Hoare as antiquarians, if you think it's necessary; Thurman I'd have to look up but he probably is more archaeologist than antiquarian. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard Colt Hoare mentions Knap Hill early in the 19th century" Why present tense here, when everything else is past tense when you refer to various historical commentaries?
    Fixed; thanks for the catch. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "note by Maud Cunnington" Is her last name needed right after her full name has been mentioned?
    I have read elsewhere that using first names for women is often considered demeaning, so I try to avoid it as much as possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, isn't sentences like "and Cunnington concluded that they were contemporary" equally problematic, as they assume the man is the "real" Cunnington? Wouldn't it also be best to give full names for both each times they are mentioned (or only first names for both after first mention)? FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in theory no, because Maud wrote the article, so "Cunnington" there just refers to her. But if it's too confusing as written perhaps I should spell out "Maud Cunnington" every time it's just her. There are twelve instances of "Cunnington" referring to her in the article; I think it would be clunky to make all of them "Maud Cunnington", but I can do it if you think it's necessary. I just realized I never explicitly say in the body of the article that Maud Cunnington was the sole author of the 1912 article (I do say so for the 1909 paper). What if I start the third paragraph of that section with "Maud Cunnington described the excavation in a 1912 paper. She and Benjamin excavated a 54 feet..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, because I thought when you just used the lastname that it referred to the man. Hmm, yeah, as long as you make it clear at the beginning of a paragrapgh which one you refer to, it should be ok with lastnames after. FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was this one taken care of? I should be ready to support after this. FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed this comment. I implemented the change suggested above. FunkMonk: pinging to see if there's anything else. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe there are some conventions I don't know of, but the punctuation in the quote under Benjamin and Maud Cunnington, 1908-9 seems very inconsistent. Sometimes tou have "purposes.... Excavations", four full stuffs with space, other places you have "that...some of these", three full stops, no space. But then you also have "camp... The" three full stops, with space. Should this be standardised?
    Fixed. The rule I learned was three full stops for an ellipsis, plus one and a space for the end of a sentence. I wasn't being consistent with that rule, but anyway MOS:ELLIPSIS says not to add the fourth one unless it's syntactically important. It should be MoS-compliant now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The only human bone found was a small jaw bone with worn teeth" Under what circumstances was it feposited there? Intentional burial?
    Cunnington doesn't say; it's listed along with other finds from the ditches, but she says nothing about context and doesn't speculate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cunnington speculated that the skeleton had been placed so near the surface of the barrow that the missing bones had been disturbed by animals." When you say placed, do you mean by people? And wouldn't it have been a body at the time?
    Changed to "speculated that the body had been buried". In some cases interments were indeed of skeletons that had been previously buried; if I recall correctly this is known to have happened both in barrows and in the ditches of causewayed enclosures. However, Cunnington says 'body' elsewhere, so I changed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Glossary of archaeology links don't go to specific sections on that page (should be possible to do so).
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Knap Hill is notable for having been the first causewayed enclosure to be excavated and identified" Give date here?
    It's mentioned in the very next sentence, after the paragraph break; is that not close enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it referred to the 1850s date, though, which isn't mentioned in the intro? FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the first excavation of the enclosure was the Cunningtons -- Thurman excavated one of the barrows outside the enclosure. I've reworded the lead to make it clearer; does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and so were called "causewayed camps", but that name has fallen out of use." Only seems to be stated in the intro.
    Now mentioned in the background section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems a bit disjointed that you, unlike the order in the article body, start the intro with location, and end with more location info, instead of keeping it in one place.
    That was in response to a comment Dudley Miles made in the talk page review: Most of the lead paragraph is about other earthworks. I suggest devoting the first paragraph to an explanation of causewayed enclosures and a description of the site, and move the comments about other sites to a fourth paragraph of the lead. Dudley, can you comment? I'd be OK with moving the material at the end of the lead back up but I don't want to reverse an edit made in response to a reviewer without checking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "implied a catastrophic end" and "imply a violent end", I wonder if these could be consolidated? Not entirely the same meaning.
    I agree. Cunnington is a little circumspect about this, and I don't want to go beyond what she says. She says the quern in the fireplace, and the heat damage to it, "is suggestive of a conflagration and the desertion of the site afterwards. If such a catastrophe did indeed take place, the discovery of a sixth-century Saxon sword may be considered as affording a possible clue to the date and cause of the occurrence". I could make it "sudden" but that seems very bland given the clear hint of violence; I can't definitely say violence happened, though. What if make both statements "imply a possible violent end"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As long as both statements say the same, I'm fine either way. FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I made them both "violent". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There still seems to be some room for confusion with the Cunningtons, for example "The discovery of a second enclosure, to the northeast of the original target of their excavation, complicated the Cunningtons' work.[21] They labelled the new enclosure the "Plateau Enclosure" to distinguish it from the "Old Camp".[21][29] It was clear to Cunnington that", first they are mentioned as a couple, then only one is mentioned, but how to know which one? FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The intention was that readers would understand that the paper was written by Maud Cunnington, so any reference to "Cunnington" had to be to Maud, but I see that it's sometimes still confusing. I reworded the first sentence to "To distinguish it from the "Old Camp", the new enclosure was labelled the "Plateau Enclosure" in Maud Cunnington's published paper"; does that do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FunkMonk: pinging; I think this is the last point? Are there other places where the references to Cunnington or the Cunningtons are confusing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The last I can see is the following "The Cunningtons also opened the barrow outside the old enclosure, to the southwest (not marked on their plan, but labelled "Grinsell 10" on Connah's plan, below), and found a skeleton fairly near the surface, face down. It was missing all the bones of the legs and feet, and the right hand; Cunnington speculated". It is the same issue as above, not sure if anyone is actually confused, but could probably be clearer to be safe. FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made it "Maud Cunnington speculated"`, which I think takes care of it at the cost of a little long-windedness. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from KJP1

[edit]

A very nice read indeed. Some, very minor, suggestions below:

Infobox
  • I'd be inclined to put its status as a Scheduled monument in the designation slot, but that is a personal preference, not a criterion point.
    Done -- I wasn't familiar with this infobox, so I hadn't noticed that was possible; thanks for pointing it out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Antiquarian and archaeological investigations
  • Is there any reason why Hoare reads as "notes 1", rather than "note 1"? Ditto with the splendidly named Eugène Eschassériaux in the Benjamin and Maud section.
    Changed to "note". I've been using that format for at least ten years and I had never noticed before that "note" would look more natural than "notes"! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John Thurman, 1850s
Benjamin and Maud Cunnington, 1908-9
  • Map - "The two pits found under the long mound are labelled P" - super-picky but should it read "The two pits found under the long mound is/are (?) each labelled P", as there are two of them (pits and 'P's). I got a little confused by the P.P. - perhaps if the map was larger!
    Good idea; done. As for the map, I would love for it to be larger, but if you look above you'll see two reviewers suggested they were unacceptably large. Nikki OKed it with the use of the {{clear}} template -- you can see that version here -- but I shrank the maps instead after the second complaint. I agree it's hard to read at the current scale. Any thoughts on the best way to go with this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was having a slight dig at earlier commentators! I have exactly the same issue with buildings articles. I like the images to be big, in order that specific features can be seen, but they frequently don't meet with the approval of other editors. I'm not sure there is a way round the issue but, if you want to explore it further, I always go to User:RexxS who is very well-informed, and very helpful, on all visual/accessibility issues. KJP1 (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Cunningtons found pottery sherds in the long bank that she dated to Roman times" - two things. Is it "shards", and is it the Cunningtons, in which case the "she" needs to be "they", or "Maud", in which case the "she" is fine? There are three other instances of "sherd" further on. Actually, digging around, I see archaeologists favour "sherd", so you can ignore that point, although for the non-specialist reader, I think shard is more commonly understood.
    I think in specialist articles it's better to use specialist technology if it can be clearly explained in context, since the reader will encounter the term if they look elsewhere. I've linked the term to glossary of archaeology#potsherd, which will help, but I could put a parenthetical "(pottery fragment)" inline if you think that would be better. The "she" issue is tricky. The dig was done by both Cunningtons; the articles were written by Maud alone. I've tried to word things throughout to be consistent with this, but I agree this sentence reads oddly, though it's accurate as written. I went ahead and changed it to "Maud Cunnington"; if you paused there, so will other readers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very little to quibble with, and the above are so minor that they don't stand in the way of Supporting. KJP1 (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All images appear to be pertinent, well placed but there is no ALT text that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've added alt text, but I've done so in line with my comments on WT:ALT, which I think is not the usual approach. As far as I can tell, this makes more sense, but I never got a sensible answer to my post there (which is why I rarely bother with alt text). I left the sword without alt text since reading the file name is perfectly fine there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga

[edit]

Hi I enjoyed reading this, I have some minor suggestions and a question on referencing, first time leaving comments at FAC so feel free to correct errors. Mujinga (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and glad to see you at FAC. If you're interested in archaeology articles we do get nominations on related topics periodically -- a recent article that came through was Chestnuts Long Barrow. More reviewers are always very welcome. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers and good luck with this article! Mujinga (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
Placeholder: on this tomorrow, looks an interesting topic, but not far removed from my own area of interest. Thanks for the opportunity. serial # 22:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I was slightly taken aback by the heavy reliance on a >100-year-old source, but there's no doubt it's a reliable one, and it's often the nature of this field that as trends come and go, so can the scholarship in any particular area. None of which of course invalidates a previous area of research. I spot-checked Cunnington (1912), as the oldest, 10 times; this became a mundane exercise as I realised that they cited nothing more or nothing less than what was being claimed. All in all, regardless of age, the sources used are of the highest academic quality and crests 1c.
Incidentally, re the discussion above, I admit that in the interests of consistency, I'd be willing to shorten a source's author for an sfn for the sake of consistency; see, for example, here, where the National Archives, although a similar source to—say—Historic England, linked to the bibliography. However, your reasons as explained above are perfectly fine, this is more by way of contributing adjacently to that discusion. An excellent article all round! serial # 14:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; and thanks for the review. Old dig reports are sometimes not discussed very much in subsequent literature, but I think you can get a sense of them by seeing what gets cited from them, and Cunnington is still cited everywhere. I like the look of the sfns links at the article you pointed me to but I'm afraid I'm unlikely to switch -- mainly habit, since I can use the style I'm familiar with without thinking. I think sfn used to be very difficult to use with VE, which was another disincentive since I much prefer VE, but it appears that's no longer the case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem whatsoever. VE was, indeed, a total arse with sfn, and nearly broke me a number of times, but as you say, that's habit for you! All the best, serial # 15:45, 8 May 2020 (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/Knap_Hill/archive1&oldid=1142602746"