Talk:Chestnuts Long Barrow/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Joe Roe (talk · contribs) 10:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Review

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   A slight tendency to run-on sentences, but otherwise this is an very clear and well written article. I couldn't find any errors. Compliant with the MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Meticulously referenced to a range of reliable sources. I have read through the major ones (Alexander & Ashbee) and they are fairly represented.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The weight given to different elements in this article could use improvement in two areas:

   1. Alexander (1961) mentions that, in addition to the Neolithic/Bronze Age monument, there are two other significant occupations at the site: a Mesolithic, and a "Romano-British hut". It seems to me that these are independently notable and should be given more prominence in the article. They're adequately described in the text (although I wish there was more information out there on the Mesolithic occupation!) but could be given their own section headings, and at the least should be mentioned in the lead.
   2. The Context section makes up a good third of the article even though none of it is about Chestnuts specifically. I think much of it would be better placed in the appropriate main articles (i.e. Neolithic Britain, Megalith#European megaliths and Medway Megaliths) to avoid duplication. A lot of it cites areas of current research, and is susceptible to going stale if it isn't in the main articles. Perhaps it could be merged there, and the context section rewritten in more summary style with hatnotes?

   With the above issues addressed, the article comprehensively covers all the significant aspects of the site without straying too far from it.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Not a particularly controversial subject, but differing interpretations of the site are presented fairly and neutrally in the few places the occur.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Well illustrated, especially with the addition of a purpose-drawn map and plan. Although the latter should be moved to commons, and would also benefit from being redrawn as SVGs. It's a shame there aren't more/better photos of the monument itself, but I suppose the lack of public access makes taking them difficult.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Discussion

Many thanks for taking the time to read this article and provide a review, Joe. I hope that you found it to be an interesting article. As per your suggestions, I have made mention of the Mesolithic and Romano-British evidence in the lede. I'm not so convinced of the need to have separate sections or sub-sections to contain this material, however, for the reason that we only have a paragraph of information for each. If there were multiple paragraphs then I would definitely agree, but I think that the information we have is too scanty to comprise a section by itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Your point about the Context section being particularly lengthy is well taken. It was also an issue raised when I was bringing up Coldrum Long Barrow to GA. It is something to think about but I am unsure quite how to cut it down without losing what I see as vital contextual information about the purpose of such monuments. Any suggestions would be gratefully received. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it has to be a drastic change, just trimming the fat here and there. Starting from the top of the context section:

• Paragraph 1: the migration/diffusion debate is as stale as old crumpets and I do not think it would be at all controversial to boil it down to, "there must have been contact with the continent, probably through Kent."

• A very fair point. I'll trim this down a bit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Paragraph 2: if there's no evidence of deforestation in the region, why mention deforestation?

• Because it alerts the reader to the fact that the long barrow would have been erected in a highly forested landscape; a far cry from the largely farming landscape of the area today. I think that that is an important contextual point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Paragraphs 3‒5: seems to be the most directly pertinent contextual info. and I wonder if it couldn't be integrated into the article proper? Could you combine it with the latter half of "Design and construction" to create a "Use as a burial monument" section, for example?

• I think that that is a good idea, and I have accordingly done so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Paragraph 6: the discussion of different monument types seems irrelevant.

• Agreed. I've scrapped the entire paragraph; I've also started expanding the chambered long barrow article, which has been in a very sorry state for far too long. Hopefully with more background information at that page, less will be needed here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Paragraphs 7–11: I would say the parts here that refer to the the characteristics of the Medway Megalithis as a whole (e.g. what they were made from, who they were built by) are useful context, but discussion of variation amongst them and between them and other monuments elsewhere is straying off the topic.

• I've produced a but of a rewrite of this section, merging it with that above, although I have left issues of variation in as I do feel that this is probably valuable contextual information; otherwise, the reader might think that every one of the Medway Megaliths was exactly the same. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

(Of course all of this is good, well referenced text so it should be salvaged for other articles wherever possible.)

I did very much enjoy reading this article – and it takes a lot to make be interested in the British Neolithic! Joe Roe (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Glad that it interested you, Joe - but is it enough to secure your defection from Near Eastern archaeology? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my review so promptly and taking my suggestions on board. I think with the cuts you've made to the rest of it it's fine to keep the Medway Megaliths section, which I can see the wisdom of. Overall the balance seems much improved and I'm happy to close the review.

Alas, it would take a lot more than this article to tempt me to defect to Britain. At the end of the day, big rocks are big rocks... Joe Roe (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Please add missing "Piggott 1935" reference. —Prhartcom♥ 14:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Well spotted! I've added that missing reference. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Glad to assist. After this was fixed, a subsequent edit removed sentence "Although a common ..." which removed a citation to "Bradley 2007", yet the reference remains in the list, uncited. —Prhartcom♥ 13:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, it'll be a shame to lose Bradley, but off he goes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Understood Midnightblueowl, can you not find another fact from that book and restore the reference? —Prhartcom♥ 15:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The book in question doesn't really discuss chambered tombs in any depth. It's probably not worth using. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)