Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nico Ditch

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 Raul654 04:11, 19 February 2009 [1].

Nico Ditch edit

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum

Although perhaps a little short by some FA standards, I nevertheless believe this to be a comprehensive and well-written account of a long linear earthwork running through Greater Manchester, in England. It was constructed some time between the 5th and 11th centuries, and is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Query~~ Hi Malleus, interesting read, a few questions:

~~If you've got the date when it was scheduled - if I read it correctly 1997, then it would be nice to tweak it to something like "has been a Scheduled Ancient Monument since 1997".~~

~~Is the whole of it a Scheduled Ancient Monument, or just the section referred to in "A 135m long section of linear earthwork known as the Nico Ditch situated in Platt Fields is now scheduled. (7)"~~ Thanks Nev1 Were Spiel Chequers 00:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This change addresses both the above, it was scheduled in 1997, and it is only the 135 stretch that's protected. Nev1 (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mention that the NW was disputed by the Mercians, Northumbrians and Wessex. Wouldn't that be better as Mercians, Britons, Northumbrians & Danes? (I think Wessex was only briefly that far North circa 829). Were Spiel Chequers 00:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hylton states the Mercians, Northumbrians, and Wessex in his book, A History of Manchester; I don't know what more to say. Nev1 (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not exactly the clearest or best recorded era of our history. But the Timeline of Anglo-Saxon settlement in Britain shows this area being captured by the Saxons from the British in the early 7th century - possibly with the battle of Chester, there is also a possibility that Rheged got this far south, so sometime between the 5th and 11th centuries certainly includes a Brithonic period. Also the Danelaw got about this far. Thanks Were Spiel Chequers 22:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Johnstone, F. R. (1967), Eccles, the growth of a Lancashire town" puts the invasion of Lancashire by the Anglo-saxons at AD613 Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've included the Britons and the Danes, and will keep Wessex as Hylton mentions them. Nev1 (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support My pedanticsms seem to have been addressed, and it is a well written article that the Wiki can be proud of. Now we just need to get Time team in to get some proper C14 dating evidence from the ditch fill... Were Spiel Chequers 09:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC) *Comment - I can understand this being a GA, but it seems kind of short... considering it's an article on a ditch. I know Ottava recently brought up a concern about FA notability at WT:FAC... is this really notable? Correct me immediately if you disagree... Ceran^→//forge 22:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Surely as a Scheduled thingumie-wotsit it's very notable? I'm no expert, but it sounds like it should be. Skinny87 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to both of the above: any Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) is by definition notable. SAMs are "nationally important" historic sites as defined by English Heritage. The article may be short, but this is the extent of information available. The last excavations were in 1997, and no new information has been discovered since.
As for it being a ditch, that doesn't mean it's not notable. There are other notable ditches such as Offa's Dyke. Nev1 (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, thanks. Striking my comment. Ceran^→//forge 01:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, thanks for addressing my comments. --Laser brain (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC) ~~This is looking good, just some minor points of consistency and clarification:~~[reply]
- "It was constructed some time between the 5th and 11th centuries." Is it conventional to specify AD/ACE or BC/BCE when phrasing a time period as such?
  - From WP:MOSNUM#Longer periods: "The absence of such an abbreviation [ie: BC/AD or BCE/CE] indicates the default [ie: AD/CE]". In articles which cross from BC to AD, or are in the first few centuries either way, I think it should definitely be used. If it's not clear in this case that all the dates are AD, it would be simple enough to add them. Nev1 (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "... which can be about 3–4 metres" Do we need to say "about" when we already give a range?
  - Removed "about" as it's unnecessary. 12:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- There seems to be some inconsistency in hyphenating the century statements. I see "19th century", "early-5th century" and "7th-century", for example.
  - When the centuries are used as adjectives, they are hyphenated. From WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words: "Centuries are named in figures: (the 5th century CE; 19th‑century painting); when the adjective is hyphenated, consider nineteenth‑century painting, but not when contrasted with painting in the 20th century". Nev1 (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "U-shaped" and "V-shaped", I think.
  - Areed, done. Nev1 (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Laser brain (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added CE to the earliest date in the mainbody of the text, that should be sufficient to establish that its all in the common era. Were Spiel Chequers 12:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

~~You need to fix ref 10 (Townships: Forton...) Use {{cite book}} as it's a published book, just hosted on the British History Online site.~~

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've said before that when using sources from british-history.ac.uk the reference "should be formatted as given in the citation note at the top of the webpage" [2]. I'm fine with applying the cite book template, but I want to be clear whether the template should always be used for british-history.ac.uk sources as I've got a bit of tinkering to do in other articles if it should. Nev1 (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is BHO reprinting a published book, correct? If so, yeah, you should format it like the other books are formatted in the article. IN this case, that means {{cite book}} or hand formatted to match that. If it's BHO putting up original publications, then you'd use {[tl|cite web}} or format like all the other web sources in the article. I wasn't very clear in the Warwick FAC, sorry. You don't want to slavishly copy BHO's formatting, it needs to be formatted to consistently match the rest of that type of source formatting in whatever article its being used in. Did that make sense? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got it, just go for consistency within the article. I've used cite journal rather than cite web as "Townships: Gorton', A History of the County of Lancaster" isn't the title and I wasn't sure how to format it using cite book. Nev1 (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of featuring some old ditch, and am only sorry not to note any relationship between it and Nico. However, it does tell us

Despite heavy weathering, the ditch is still visible in short sections, which can be 3–4 metres wide and up to 1.5 metres deep. A visible 300-metre stretch of the ditch runs through Denton golf course.

both at the head and at the foot, which seems overkill (or overnico): I didn't alter this as I wasn't sure how best to do so. Morenoodles (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to read Despite heavy weathering, the ditch is still visible in short sections, such as a 300-metre stretch in Denton golf course. In the parts which survive, the ditch is 3–4 metres wide and up to 1.5 metres deep. Nev1 (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the second paragraph of the lead is no longer a copy of the current status section, which now provides a bit more information.

The lead: The ditch is still visible in short sections, such as a 300-metre stretch in Denton golf course. In the parts which survive, the ditch is 3–4 metres wide and up to 1.5 metres deep. Part of the earthwork is protected as a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

Current status: Despite heavy weathering, the ditch is still visible in short sections, which can be 3–4 metres wide and up to 1.5 metres deep. A 300-metre stretch of the ditch that runs through Denton golf course and a section of the ditch running through Platt Fields Park are considered the best persevered remains of the ditch. Nev1 (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very well-written. I kept thinking that there must be something else to write about it, but the article answered any questions I had. Good work! Karanacs (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - An extremely interesting and well-written article. Even though it's rather short, I'm actually surprised at how much information there is to write about a ditch. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a ditch, it's a "linear earthwork". :lol: Thanks for the support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs)

Support I didn't find even the tiniest copyediting tweak to be made. Stop this nonsense, or you'll put me out of work! Maralia (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Here in the US, we just have regular ditches with no history attached! Neat article. NancyHeise ^talk 16:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as follows:

File:Nico Ditch in Greater Manchester.png needs to have its license tag fixed ("Example" is not a valid user). Nev1 could use commons:Template:PD-self or commons:Template:PD-self2. Moreover, can the information be fleshed out to tell which source the plotting of the ditch on the map comes from?

Whoops, sorted now. I've also included information on where to find the diagram it's based on. Nev1 (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nico ditch 1895 os map.png should help readers to locate the map on old-maps.co.uk. A short description, telling what terms or co-ordinates to use as search terms there, should do; I have no luck finding the map with "Lancashire and Furness" or the co-ordinates provided.

These should be easy to resolve. Jappalang (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been promoted, but the bot hasn't run yet. No further comments should be placed here. Karanacs (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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