Talk:Shrub's Wood Long Barrow
 | Shrub's Wood Long Barrow has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: April 3, 2019. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Shrub's Wood Long Barrow appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 May 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Shrub's Wood Long Barrow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 14:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think sub-trapezoidal is a little jargony for the lead.
- I see your point, but I'm not quite sure what we could use as an alternative. We have "sub-trapezoidal" on the Jacket's Field Long Barrow article. Maybe "roughly trapezoidal"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Stour long barrows or Stour Long Barrows?
- I'll ensure that it's capitalised throughout, if just to match the capitalisation of "Medway Megaliths". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Stour long barrows are another regional cluster in Sussex, while a solitary long barrow is known at Badshot Farm in Farnham, Surrey." Any names/links?
- Ah yes, there is: Badshot Lea Long Barrow. (I started the article a few weeks back). I'll add the Wikilink into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- "There is evidence for side ditches" Of?
- That reads better. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
That's all that jumps out at me. Please check my edits. There's a sense in which this site is perhaps - incredibly - only borderline notable, but you seem to have done a great job with the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Josh. I lean towards the view that all surviving long barrows probably warrant articles. In cases like this, where no excavation has taken place, obviously there isn't a great deal that can be said, but once that excavation occurs then hopefully a great deal more information will come flooding in that can be used in this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I do think "roughly trapezoidal" is a little better than "sub-trapezoidal", but I'll leave that to you. Either way, happy to promote - this is surely the fewest comments I've had on a GAC in years! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Height? edit
I've added a "dubious" tag to the statement that the barrow is 29m high - isn't it more likely to be 2.9m? See also descriptions of nearby Julliberrie's Grave ("2.1m") and Jacket's Field Long Barrow ("almost 2m"). My apologies if I've mis-used this tag or otherwise flagged this inappropriately.
- Both of the external links say ~two metres. 71.235.184.247 (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comments moved from Talk:Shrub's Wood Long Barrow/GA1. @Midnightblueowl: Could you look into this? Josh Milburn (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's 2m high according to the English Heritage listing so I have changed the text accordingly Hallucegenia (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comments moved from Talk:Shrub's Wood Long Barrow/GA1. @Midnightblueowl: Could you look into this? Josh Milburn (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
'Did You Know' on the Main Page still says 'nearly 30 m', but I don't know how to edit this. PhilUK (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
There has very clearly been an error here, and I'm not sure how it came to pass. My fault, apologies. Will fix it now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)