Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Smythe's Megalith/archive1

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 March 2019 [1].

Smythe's Megalith

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the Medway Megaliths, a series of Early Neolithic chambered tombs located in Kent, Southeast England that are part of the world's oldest tradition of stone construction. I brought an article on another of the Medway Megaliths, Coldrum Long Barrow, to FA status a while ago, and thought I'd try to get this article to join it. It is presently rated as a GA. This is not a particularly long article, and should be of interest to folks intrigued by archaeology and the distant past. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary thought Since the article has lots of unillustrated stretches, it would benefit from some photos of comparable structures that still exist. Otherwise, looks good. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea. I've added a photograph of the Coldrum Long Barrow which shows a similar chamber. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text

Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Smythe's_Megalith_Illustration.png: is the given source the first known publication of the image? What information is given in that source with regards to copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. I've added said information to the image file itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - given that information, the URAA tag doesn't apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack

I pretty much enjoyed the read, and could not find a single issue. Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil

The writing is excellent; have made some trivial edits, but this is very sparing and clear indeed. Especially the 1st para of the "Design" sect, with all the measurements, could have been heavy going to a casual, non specific fact seeking reader, but to the nominator's credit, it all flows quite easily and holds interest.
Certainly comprehensive, esp. in terms of appropriate setting of the megalith in their specific local & British Isles historical context, while also giving a clear indication of the wider European historical setting.
Sourcing also first rank, noting that all of the authors I looked up were leaders in their field. Would wiki-link them however in the sources sect. to their wiki bios.
I dont see any issue with ref formatting. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

I see a lot of duplinking, you can highlight them with this script:[2] I'll have a closer look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Link Kent in the infobox?

Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why Kent and the country aren't mentioned under "location". If I didn't read the intro first, I wouldn't know any of this. Would best to have all the following information form the intro there: "near the village of Aylesford in the south-eastern English county of Kent."

I've now added this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Borders on images are discouraged, so I wonder if this[3] image could be cropped, and all images moved to Commons?

I think that the border improves the image in this instance, although I certainly won't object if anyone removes it from the picture (or creates a better quality image that my rather amateur attempt). Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"was placed to as to prevent" A bit awkward. Was placed as to? Was positioned to prevent?

I've reworded this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"divide the chamber into two" In two?

Good suggestion. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" in breadth" Width might be more typical, or what does the source say?

Yes, "width" would be better. I'll make the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"was the skull of a mole" Placed there by humans, or had it just died there?

It's not clear. Potentially, it could be either. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles could also be linked from image captions. There are now many unlinked names and terms.

Would this not result in duplinks, however? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links in the intro, article body, and captions are considered separately. FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"termed "Structure 4806" by its excavators" When?

I've added "in the 2000s". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"under-jaws" Lower jaws, mandibles? I have never seen the term "under-jaw" before.

I've double-checked the sources on this point as I'd never encountered this term before either. Apparently the original report did say "under-jaw". However, I think that it must be a reference to a mandible; I mean, what else could it be? I'll make the alteration in the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it certainly refers to the mandible, but must be some kind of archaic term that is better replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"and two portions of the ulna" An ulna? Ambiguous now as to whether it was pieces of one or two ulnae.

I think that here is ambiguity as whether these are two pieces of a single ulna or two separate ulnae. I've switched the prose in the text from "ulna" to "unlae" anyway, as I think that the plural works better here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"A jaw bone containing" Upper or lower? Especially because you already mentioned jaws.

I've changed this sentence so that it starts: "Analysis of the recovered teeth showed that the molars were worn down …." Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Around 200 metres away" Needs conversion.

Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Christian zealots" Zealot could be linked.

I think that it would probably take the reader to the wrong article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"cannot be publicly accessed" Why, who owns it now? We also seem to have a photo from there, taken by a user?

There is no public access onto the actual farmer's field where the monument once stood. Obviously, one can look at the field from the adjacent trackway (from where this photo was taken). Do you think that I should alter the prose in the article accordingly? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maidstone is linked twice in the same sentence.

I have removed the duplink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I always read the intro last, but from reading the article, it is never explicitly stated the monument was destroyed, which it should be. The article body only says "The workmen threw most of the human remains to the side", but not what happened to the stones.

The paragraph above that ends with "The stones were then removed, likely with the assistance of horses". Do you think I need to add more here to make the destruction more explicit? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in that first part of the "Discovery and investigation" section. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In the 1920s, the archaeologist" - "included it in his 1924" If it was found in 1922, I'm not sure "in the 1920s" is justified, it could basically only have been within the following two years...

Ah, there's a little confusion here. It was discovered in the 1820s, not the 1920s, when Crawford looked at it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah *facepalm* FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the stones that were later found, mentioned at the end of the article?

I'm afraid that I have no idea. If it is ever revealed in publication I will ensure that the Wikipedia article is updated accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - that's what i could find. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

No spotchecks carried out
A couple of minor presentation points:

Ref 57: pp. range requires ndash not hyphen

Fixed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the bibliography, Philp & Dutto are listed out of alphabetical sequence

Well spotted! I've corrected that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability, and are uniformly presented. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time, Brian. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber

Read it and enjoyed. support on comprehensiveness and prose. Only quibble was that I'd try and get the estimated dates of construction/use in the lead but not a big deal Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.