Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barkhale Camp/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 23 May 2022 [1].

Barkhale Camp edit

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another causewayed enclosure in Sussex. There are about half-a-dozen of these sites in Sussex, and I'd like to get all of them featured; this is the fourth. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 23:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

  • "The enclosure was first identified in 1929". This one, or causewayed enclosures in general?
  • "At the time of the survey that identified the ditches". It may be helpful to add 'in 1929'.
  • Link National Trust?
  • I think "access ways" should be 'accessways'.
  • "bucket urn and a collared urn." Perhaps a footnote explanation for the non-specialists?
  • scraper, core and flake could all be helpfully linked.
  • "Trench V found 44 fire-cracked flints". I doubt that. Perhaps "In trench V were found 44 fire-cracked flints" or similar?
  • Link Samian ware.
  • Sources: should Curwen E. Cecil not go before Curwen Eliot?

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done except the urns, which I'll have to think about in the morning, and the Curwens. Cecil's first name was Eliot (he was the son of Eliot Curwen) and because I know that I put him after his father, as one would if the name were spelled out. He never used "Eliot Cecil Curwen". Do you think the order should be swapped? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that as given E. should come before Eliot. If it was in full, then Eliot would go before Eliot Cecil, but it's not. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's logical. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NØ edit

I will have a crack at it but make a note of my lack of knowledge of this topic.

  • I think a more straightforward way of writing the lead's second para's last line may be "Peter Leach conducted another excavation before the clearance was completed and after the southern part of the site was cleared of trees in 1978, examining several mounds within the enclosure, and attempting to determine the line of the ditch and bank along the southern boundary."
    Rereading the source I realized I was making it sound more complicated than it was -- the NT planned a clearance, and Leach excavated the site before they started. I've used a variation on your suggested phrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The site is owned by the National Trust, and is a scheduled monument." - isn't active voice preferred?
    Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone unfamiliar with the topic, is Military terminology an appropriate link to be added for "military terms" here?
    I don't think so. What I'm trying to say here is that it's had to find a way to explain the causeways as a defensive military position -- "military terms" here just means "thinking about this from a military point of view". Is there a clearer way to phrase this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "substantial labour would have been required, for clearing the land" - is the comma here necessary?
    Removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trackway redirects to "Historic roads and trails" - would it be the right link to add here?
    I don't think so -- this trackway is a footpath for walkers, rather than having any historic importance. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "found three distinct groupings of sizes, and Barkhale Camp lies in the middle group" - "groupings" and "group" are similar so maybe the second one could be done away with to make less repetitive.
    If I make it "lies in the middle one" or "lies in the middle" it feels vague to me. Would it be better to change the "grouping" to "group" to make the back-reference explicit? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would be a good idea. I will leave this up to your good judgement.--NØ 11:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't the small sentence at the end of the Site section be incorporated into the para's first one? - "The scheduled monument is on the South Downs, four miles to the northwest of Arundel, in West Sussex;"
    I did this slightly differently. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are none of the three links at Earthworks appropriate to link for the word here? What about linking "fortified settlements" to Fortification? I apologize if the answer is obvious.
    Good idea; I think the Earthworks (archaeology) link is the best for this purpose. For fortified settlements I'm hesitant -- this might be overlinking since this article doesn't really talk about fortifications specifically, it's just a passing mention. I'd like to see if other reviewers feel this would be a helpful link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this may be where Ryle's trench was placed." - if this is unconfirmed shouldn't it be attributed which writer speculated this?
    This is complicated. I was hoping to avoid having to directly attribute this (and it is cited, after all, so the reader can see it's in Leach's review article) in the hope that it was obvious and didn't need attributing -- after all, we know Ryle dug a trench, and this is the discovery of an earlier trench, so it's not an expert's insight. The reason it's complicated is that it's not really clear who first pointed this out. Leach says it in his 1983 paper, but that paper included a summary of Clipson's MA thesis, which in turn assembled material from Seton-Williams' excavation. So the suggestion could have been made by Leach, Clipson, or Seton-Williams. I really don't want to mention all that in the body of the article in order to explain what I hope is clear anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1978 the site was owned by the National Trust, which decided to clear the trees from the southern part of the site" - maybe change the second "site" to a synonym, or "of the site" could be removed. Since this is a new section you may also choose to change the first "site" to "Barkhale Camp" instead
    Good point; I did this a little differently. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of transparency, I will note that I haven't looked at the sources.
A great article that could maybe just use a few more wikilinks for rookies like me.--NØ 05:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Everything now addressed, I hope, with one question above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied by the changes and can now extend my support. In case you want to return the favour, I am a fan of your work in source reviews and could use one at my current FAC. Best of luck!--NØ 11:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! As it happens I was thinking about doing that source review. If I don't get to it today it should be tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from mujinga edit

  • Hmm! I didn't know about this site Mujinga (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "height of 0.6 m, and a width of 6.0 m, though the ploughing is likely to have spread out the bank material. Leach concludes that the height was unlikely to have ever exceeded 1.5 m." above you have "0.5 metres (1 ft 8 in) high" so I suppose here shoiudl be metres not m, and also converted
    Done; I think I got all of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Few of the flints were found in clearly stratified contexts, but overall the flint finds support the Neolithic date assigned to the enclosure" - don't think you need the second "flint", just "finds" reads ok
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the picture, "grey lines are banks" is confusing me. Do you mean the dotted grey line?
    I think I may need to change the colours here. Page 13 in this paper is the source; you can see he outlines the ditches and just draws lines for the banks. Any ideas for a better way to represent this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I'm more confused now! Mujinga (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry! I've updated the picture and the caption (you may need to refresh cache to see the new picture, or click through to see it on commons). The picture now shows shapes with a grey dotted outline for the location of the ditches, and brown dotted lines for the earth banks. Does that make more sense? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes thanks that's much clearer! I would suggest labelling the track as well, just for clarity. Mujinga (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " through the enclosure ditch, was examined for land snails; very few were found, making it impossible to draw definite conclusions, but it was notable that all the species found were shade-loving" - were the snails if found going to help with dating the site?
    Snails in the fill can tell you about the environment at the time they were deposited there; if they're all shade-loving species it implies the sites was cleared from woodland; if they're open grassland species it implies the ditches were dug some time after the woods were cleared. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah ok thanks for the explanation. Some of that is prob worth saying then, since at the moment I'd still be wondering what the "definite conclusions" are about. Mujinga (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, good idea; done; I was able to use the explanation Thomas gives in his report to source something -- how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    looks good, I corrected a typo Mujinga (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "K.D. Thomas" - "K. D. Thomas"? if that's the case, there's a few other ones in sources
    Fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
  • In the infobox, I'd suggest saying near Arundel rather than "near Bignor" since Arundel is more well-known
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all from me, thanks for an informative read! Mujinga (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review; replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Two more replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice one, made replies and switching to support. Will be interested to read about the next causewayed enclosure when it pops up Mujinga (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Next is probably Offham Hill, which I'm still working on. The only other definite causewayed enclosure in Sussex is Court Hill, which doesn't have an article yet. There are two probable but unconfirmed candidate, Butts Brow and Halnaker Hill, but I don't know if there are enough sources for a full article on those yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • I will review this, but as a driveby comment I see there are no photos. Would any of the photos of Bignor Hill on Geograph at [2] be any good? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't thought of looking under Bignor Hill instead of the site name; thanks. Found one and added it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you have linked to the wrong John Ryle. He was a physician and his ODNB article at [3] says nothing about archaeology.
    I can't put my hands on the relevant ref immediately, but I spent some time when I wrote the article making sure I had the right John Ryle, and I think the link is correct. He was a physician who lived very close to the site, and was not an archaeologist. I'll have another look tomorrow and see if I can dig out the references that convinced me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The enclosures in southern Britain began to appear shortly before 3700 BC, and continued to be built for at least 200 years; in a few cases, they continued to be used as late as 3300 to 3200 BC." Were these dates established by Gathering Time analysis of radiocarbon dates? If so you should say so somewhere.
    I've cited this to the introduction to Gathering Time and also to the earlier Creation of Monuments, which doesn't give those numbers in the text, rather in graphical form. The introduction to GT is more specific, but it doesn't really change the numbers from the earlier source, so I'm not sure it's right to make it appear as if those numbers were derived only from the 2011 source, when it's not a change to the earlier understanding, only a firmer basis for it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking again at this, I am unclear about the source of the dating. You say above that the dating is based on Creation of Monuments, but this is not spelled out in the text and not mentioned in the final section. Were the Creation figures based on new 2001 radiocarbon dates or were they a summary of the 1995 RCMHE figures? If GT could not get dates due to the acid soil then they were presumably just giving the dates found earlier. Were the Creation dates based on material which could be carbondated or was there a different basis, such as pottery, to the dating? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Creation introduction has a chart with the X-axis labelled "calibrated years BC", showing, for a dozen different Neolithic cultural phenomena (e.g flint mines and cursus monuments), a line that shows when it begins to appear and when it disappears. The lines are solid in the middle and dotted at the ends to indicate the uncertainly. There are no gridlines on the chart but it's fairly easy to read off the numbers; the line for causewayed enclosures starts as a dotted line not long before 3700 BC and is solid from about 3700 BC to about 3300 BC, and dotted again to shortly after 3200 BC. The book was published in 2001. Then in Gathering Time (2011) we have "This book...using chronological estimates produced by Bayesian statistical analysis of hundreds of radiocarbon dates...establishes that these ceremonial areas...began in southern Britain in the late 38th century cal BC, and flourished principally in the 37th and 36th centuries cal BC.... Some causewayed enclosures went on to have a long history, the initial use of a few continuing into the 34th or 33rd centuries cal BC..." So GT doesn't significantly change the conclusions from the earlier book. I wanted to cite both because they reinforce each other, and the radiocarbon dating project certainly establishes the dates more definitely, but since this is an article about an individual enclosure, not the parent article about causewayed enclosures generally, I thought more detail wasn't necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I confused myself not distinguishing between general statements about causewayed enclosures and this specific site. Sorry about that. You say that GT could not get dating on the site, but maybe spell out specifically that no one has. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't realized that I hadn't actually said that; good point. I've added a sentence in the section on Leach, since I can cite that to a direct statement by him. His estimated dates are less precise than the later sources, but since this is a historical section about the conclusions of the individual investigations I think that's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clipson's thesis was itself never published". I would delete "was itself never published" as it would be very unusual for a thesis to be published, but it should survive and be available for study. Is it known whether that is true in this case?
    I deleted the phrase. I contacted UCL in March to ask about this, and was told it's available on microfiche only; I don't think I can say anything about that in the article since my source is just the email from the UCL Institute of Archaeology librarian. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in)" 4 ft 11 in is too exact as a conversion of 1.5 metre. It should be 5 ft.
    Fixed. I had to do it by hand; I couldn't figure out how to make the convert template do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " belonging to the "Park Brow – Caesar's Camp" group". What does "Park Brow – Caesar's Camp" mean?
    This is a categorization of pottery used by Barry Cunliffe in his Iron Age Communities in Britain. He describes the type, and I could reproduce that description, but there are several types included under that name, and since the Barkhale excavation source gives no more details I think I should perhaps just cut it. Or I could say something like "one of the Iron Age pottery types identified by Barry Cunliffe in 1974"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would delete it. It will mean nothing to readers and there does not appear to be an article you can link to in order to clarify. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've deleted it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dudley, just checking if there's anything outstanding. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You were going to check John Ryle. I think you need a source to confirm he is the correct one. Also, I would add that the site is undated to the lead. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So I was. I've added an abbreviated version of Leach's conclusion about dating to the lead. Re Ryle, I've found the data that convinced me, and it may not convince you. According to our article on Gilbert Ryle, his brother John Alfred Ryle lived in Barkhale; that led me to this snippet which says Ryle was a professor who lived in Barkhale. This source, which I cite in the article, says the one who dug the trench was a professor, with initials JA. That source actually cites Curwen's Archaeology of Sussex, which I have, but I didn't feel it necessary to go back to the earlier source for that. So we have a Professor J.A. Ryle of Barkhale and we have a Professor J.A. Ryle who discovered a site in Barkhale. I can't find any other famous Ryle families (with any other initials, even), so I think it's reasonable to assume these two are the same person. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I can't see your snippet but I have found [4], which I assume is not a reliable source but quotes the probate calendar. That seems conclusive although I am not sure there is a source you can cite. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass edit

  • Ref #1: I don't agree with using "13 March 2022" as the publication date for the NHLE source. As it is a database pull, the page is regenerated on each use, so the access-date covers that suitably. I'd recommend removing it entirely (especially since the archive link, which is the primary one here, uses the archive-date of 10 April 2022 for its generated date.)
    Agreed, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #12: Same point for the National Trust source.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #39: Wikipedia uses title case for references, and does not emulate the formatting of the original if it uses all caps etc. As such, reformat the author names in this title. Also, is there a specific reason why this is placed in the References section, while another Antiquity source, "Curwen, E. Cecil (1930)" is in the Sources section?
    Title case implemented. I have absolutely no idea why I put this in the references, but it's now been moved to the sources section, and (I hope) made consistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few little discrepancies in your short footnotes:
    • Refs #8, 20, 25: include the first names, while all others don't. I guess this is to aim to distinguish the two Curwen's, but I think that is sufficiently done with the variation in the References section, and doesn't need duplicating in the Sources section. I'm not too bothered either way on this one mind.
    • Ref #16: "Oswald, Dyer, & Barber (2001), pp. 99–105." – remove the comma before the ampersand.
    • Refs #17, 18, 29: "Oswald & Dyer(1995)" – add a space between Dyer and the bracket.
    • Ref #24: "Leach (1983), p.12." – add a space between p. and 12.
      All the above should now be fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All sources appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources.
  • Searches in all the usual places only revealed this book which might be of interest that has not been used.
    I did look at this before the nomination, and the material in it is really more relevant to the overview article, causewayed enclosure, which I may get to eventually. There was nothing I thought had to be mentioned in this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks reveal no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing, and on each check the source was accurately reflected in the article text.

Other than a few formatting errors, this looks pretty solid. The book source linked may or may not be of much use; it seems to expand slightly on some of the content of the article, but I'll leave that to you. I certainly wouldn't oppose based on its omission. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sharp-eyed review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, all good from me on the sourcing. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:18, 16 May 2022 (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/Barkhale_Camp/archive1&oldid=1089467740"