Talk:Wade's Causeway/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 01:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any state to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose has greatly improved.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are provided for all sources of information
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Yes
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Detailed, but not excessive
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Resolved
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes
	7. Overall assessment.	A well-written article that has improved greatly, well-deserving of GA status

Hello, PocklingtonDan, this article is excellent and very comprehensive. It is very well-sourced and has some of the best writing (particularly about etymology) that I have seen.

Thank you for your review efforts to date, you make good points, and I will address these tonight.

-PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Lede

Secondly, the lede is very top-heavy, and some of the naming could be moved to the article itself. A lede functions to summarise, however this is extensively cited, implying that it is functioning as part of the article rather than a summary of.

 Done I have moved the cites out of the olead section, and also the parts of the lead focusing on alternate names for the structure

-PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Lastly (very small point) it is convention in section titles to capitalise the first letter of the first word, but for every word thereafter to be in lower case.

 Done - PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

With some changes to the structure it will be much easier to evaluate this article, and I will continue the review then. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention and rapid response! I feel there has been some ambiguity into how I am reviewing this article. When reviewing an article, I will work through WP:GARC as stated above. I have made comments pertaining to structure and readability, which pertain to the readability criteria stated above. During this review, I will propose both problems and possible solutions, although solutions are advisory only and provided from politeness and as recommended in the criteria. When structural concerns are addressed, will address the sections in terms of their readability. As sources follow content, I will wait until later before engaging in a thorough review of references, until the greater concerns about readability are addressed. Kindly, LT910001 (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Naturally, I looked at your other reviews, so I do know how they are done, I also noted how many reviews you have open at the current time. I've also looked at a lot of reviews in my time, so I don't think I'm suffering ambiguity. I, myself, do a "two pass" review: skim-reading an article to get a general feel of the article (and to get a view of whether is is good, middling or marginal) and then review in more depth section by section, but leaving the lede until last (so early comments may well be expanded upon or modified by later comments). I'm also quite comfortable with the reviewer making of suggestions to improve nominations. I'd rather not interfere in someone else's reviews, but out of curiosity I decided to look at this review. And, sorry, but on the basis of skim reading, my initial view of this article is seems very different from your initial comments: but your later comments seem to be a bit more in line with mine. It would, however, be helpful to clarify exactly what you your view of the lead is. If your requirement is mostly to remove references then we probably have a similar viewpoint, but I'm having problems resolving your comments (twice) of a top-heavy lede against the requirements of WP:LEAD. I hadn't intend to say much more (other than respond to any questions that might arise from my comments below), since I've only skim-read this article, I will wait until the review is finished. Pyrotec (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That's alright. This review will encompass a review of all of the criteria, and won't be through rose-coloured glasses. I will work through one issue at at time and with any luck will be able to help this article move towards GA status. I always welcome contributions, and if you have any more reservations feel free to voice them here (although for my peace of mind I would be very grateful if this review panned-out a whet more before it!) LT910001 (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The comment Lede is too heavy, which appears twice above, is perhaps reviewing against personal preferences, rather than against WP:WIAGA / Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. By all means take out the citations (the Lede should not include material that does not appear elsewhere in the article, so citations should already be in the body of the article), but for an article of the length I'd suggest that it is a bit light-weight.

 Done With regard to length of the lead, the Manual of Style indicates that for an article of this length (30k characters excluding lead without spaces, 35k excluding lead, with spaces) there should be 3-4 paragraphs. So Pyrotec I think you are correct, and LT910001 I think you are wrong. I will increase the lead to 3-4 paragraphs as per Manual of Style

Its possible that we are both mis-reading LT910001's comments and that be heavy he means dense/too packed with refs, rather than relating to the length of the lead?

-PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The primary reviewer will need to answer that question. In some respects the lede is a bit wordy, if I was editing it I'd possibly tighten up the prose (making it a bit shorter) and then possibly expand it. The lede has two functions: introduce that topic and summarise the main points. In addition, it should not include material that is not in the body of the article and the "balance" of the lede should match that of the body of the article. So questions to consider are: what are the important points, does the lede summarise them and is the "balance" right? Pyrotec (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Good day to you both. PocklingtonDan does reflect my concern correctly that the lede is very technical, has an excessive amount of data in the body, and as the above comment suggests, could do with some copyediting. As it is, this discussion is mute, as the article's lead has already improved. LT910001 (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Believe the lead should now be sorted to your satisfaction, cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Pyrotec

I would not regard the article as "excellent", particularly as its presented with raw web links (and lack of access dates). It's a good article, quite possibly it will make Good Article once its been brought up to standard, but it's no higher than that (certainly not an FA or "A-class").

I am starting to respond to the suggestions made in the GA review now. I will try and incorporate your suggestions also, Pyrotec.

I'm a little confused by your reference to A/FA class articles, this article is here for GA review at this time, which is the standard it must be reviewed against. You are welcome to your views on its merits against FA standard, but that is not of any relevance for the purposes of this review

-PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Precisely, I am well aware of WP:WIAGA and what standard GAN's are to be review against. As a reviewer, if / when I review an GAN nomination that is, in my opinion, considerable above the standards of GA and also has a reasonable chance of progressing through WP:FAC I would say so as part of the review summary. In such cases, it is entirely up the nominator, or not, whether the article was eventually submitted to FAC. Since this review states that the article is "Excellent", I'm expressing dissent: the article could be brought to up GA standard with probably minimal effort. Pyrotec (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It is always good to have a second pair of eyes on a review. I thank you for your interest in this review and would request that you timestamp your comments. LT910001 (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done, nothing actionable here, marking section as done -PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Citation placement is also erratic, some placed before punctuation (, & .) and some after (they should all be "after").

 Done I only found 2 instances of this in over 200 refs, if I have missed any more let me know

-PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like, Ref 10 in the As a Roman causeway subsection has been missed. Pyrotec (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Sorted this last instance -PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

In Etymology refs 11 and 12 are sandwiched between commas. The requirement is in Wikipedia:Citing sources, just in case you regard this as my personal preference. Pyrotec (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done And, since I have not asked for a policy source on a reference for policy on citing sources, your flippancy is unwanted and unwarranted. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the raw web citations, one of which is wikipedia (and that is somewhat unacceptable, wikipwedia is not a WP:RS, but the "reliable source" seems to be the image not wikipedia itself) and there are also apparently unreferenced web citations such as "English Heritage Protection List website, entry 1004108". Since there are few web citations, little work would be involved in changing them to {{cite web}}

I will look at this

-PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I am in progress with this now, may take me another day or two -PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done I believe that this is now done. All refs have been converted to links to items in the bibliography, using the excellent SFN template system. I believe this resolves your concern regarding the web citations -PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that if Harvard-style citations such as "Hayes and Rutter, p. 50" are used, the necessary links to Hayes and Rutter are given; and that applied to all relevant citations. Pyrotec (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I will look at this too

-PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I am in progress with this now, may take me another day or two -PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done This should also now be complete, again using the SFN template system. All cites link to the relevant works in the bibliography. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to say as an aside this article to my eyes is now cited more densely and with a much clearer citation system than all of the recent FA-class articles such as Le_Quang_Tung, Blue-faced_Honeyeater, Brockway Mountain Drive and Herrerasaurus so I'm pretty sure we should be at GA standard in terms of references now. I appreciate the feedback and suggestions on how to improve the references section -PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of them, but are they all being cited or do some fall into the category of further reading. If so, I'd suggest that they are separated in a Bibliography section and Further reading (or some comparable description) section? Pyrotec (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done All cites are to material directly supporting the stated position -PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Structure

I have some concerns about the structure of the article, which jumps about a lot, so I've scoured around for a similar article about an excavated site and found Valley of the Kings. I think the structure of this article would be enhanced if it progressed something like: description -> history -> modern history -> social and cultural significance (incl. etymology). This restructure would enhance the quality of the article and make it much more readable.

I will take a look at this

-PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I am currently concentrating on the refs, and once this is done in a day or so, I will return to look at the structure -PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have restructured this review for clarity and look forward to your edits. LT910001 (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have completed the work to improve the references, and I'm having a bit of a think about how to restructure the article based on your suggestions. This will likely take me a few days to hit on the right reworked structure, I'll probably sandbox a couple of alternatives. Thank you for your patience. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have not been able to come up with a satisfactory alternative structure for the article at this time, and do not believe that this would benefit the article. I have tried reworking it several ways, using my sandbox, even printing it out and cutting bits of it out and laying them out on the table in different orders. I think there are several different narratives or areas to cover off and they do not integrate well when you try and force a single timeline or chronology on to them. I think this is because there is such uncertainty and varying claims for dates that you would keep addressing the same topic over and over at different points in the chronology. I am happy to discuss this further but, whereas I have addressed most of your concerns - and other editors' concerns - very quickly, I am having real trouble addressing this concern and I do not currently believe it would benefit the article. Your thoughts please? -PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done I have had a go at reworking the structure now, let me know what you think -PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment by J3Mrs

I largely agree with Pyrotec but I also think the article needs a thorough copyedit (mostly for redundancy and repetition) and the removal of unnecessary references. For example four refs to say the moorland is wet is over the top. J3Mrs (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your comments and your edits to the article. I see that you prefer a very terse style of writing. I'm not, however, sure that this is advocated by the good article criteria, on my reading of them. I'm equally no sure that this writing is "better" than a style that includes what you see as being "redundant" words that make the prose flow more smoothly. I would say, personally, that I find the terse, choppy structure of sentences without this glue a very uncomfortable reading experience. As I say, personal preference aside, I am not aware at this time that such terseness is advocated as a GA criterion. I would ask that you not make any further edits in this vein if possible please, until we can settle this question. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

With regards to density of citations, better cited articles are surely preferable to poorly-cited ones. Simply removing references would be an entirely retrograde step, and an extremely odd decision tantamount to article vandalism. Quite besides the arse-backwardness of deliberately removing cites at all, my personal experience is that people will challenge just about any statement, and there are several cases in which it is useful to have lots of cites for the same statement and be clear what the consensus position is. Take, for example, where someone has found an opposing cite: it is very useful to know that this is a rogue/errant position and that the majority of sources confirm the original position. This would not be obvious were you to strip out cites, in which case itThe would ba 1-v-1 situation and NPOV would require you to list both opinions. I think a sensible compromise solution here would be to link to a footnote rather than have several cites, and in the footnote state (with refs) which authors support the consensus statement/position. I will do this shortly where applicable. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done This solution is implemented now so that, in the main article body, there are no chains of multiple refs -PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and in case your comment was intended to be tongue in cheek that we don't need 4 refs for moorland being "wet over the top" since it is obvious, you'll note that one of the cites in the footnote actually claims that the opposite was true.... -PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I refer you to Wikipedia:Citation overkill and Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Be concise, this is an encyclopedia article not an essay. J3Mrs (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The former link (relating to citation density) is an essay, not policy, with a banner at the top reading "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors". That is not official Wikipedia policy, and has no relevance to a GA review. I shall disregard it. I have made an argument above for why extra citations are a good thing, you have not responded to this. This seems matter of opinion, and unrelated to GA criteria. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Your second link is also an essay, and not the Manual of Style. I am perfectly aware that this is an encyclopaedia, but that does not remove the burden from editors of making the article readable, a goal which is poorly served by chopping every sentence into a staccato oblivion of unreadable brevity. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I happen to agree with User talk:J3Mrs. I think I reviewed most, if not all, of her GAN nominations in 2009 / 2010; and she has had more done since then, but not by me. I'd say that this article is at GA-level, but the reviewer seems to be busy with newer reviews. However, having said that its at GA-level I don't see the need for two, three, four, five and in some case six citations after statements. It's overkill. I suspect that it would not make it through FA for that very reason. J3Mrs is obviously trying to improve the article, so comments about arse-backwardness of deliberately removing cites and vandalism are not appropriate here, neither is personal criticism of another editor's writing style and snide comments about terseness is (not) advocated as a GA criterion and chopping every sentence into a staccato oblivion of unreadable brevity. Furthermore, its your nomination: you are entitled to a viewpoint, but you don't make the decision (on pass or fail) and please refrain from personal attacks. I've already said that I consider it to be GA, but I would advise against making any further personal attacks. Pyrotec (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I used to write in a long-winded style until I took note of advice from editors who write better articles than I ever could. The article is extremely interesting, and I've even seen the "Roman road" but I reiterate it needs a good copyedit, probably from someone better than me. I used to grit my teeth when it was done to my writing but I learned from it and I am happy when articles I am interested in are improved. Blue numbers break up the text and make it unreadable. Essays or not, the advice is good. J3Mrs (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, both of you, which I will reply to in detail below -PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I have already laid out above how I plan to keep the density of cites without it being visible in the page and breaking up the readability, but I will repeat it here since everyone seems to be missing it: I will put a single footnote in place for each current instance of multiple cites, that footnote in turn to contain a summary of the consensus position and links to the multiple cites. That way all refs are maintained, but there is no sea of blue. There is nothing to be gained from simply deleting references to statements which may later be challenged: that would be, to put it mildly, a strange decision. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done The proposed change to remove blocks of cites is done now -PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You stretch the concept of "personal attacks" to breaking point, in my opinion Pyrotec. I said that removing cites (which no-one has done as of yet) would be tantamount to (as good as) vandalism and arse-backwardsness. This falls far short of me naming anybody as a vandal or naming a particular editor as "arse-backwards", and I think you appreciate this. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I am finding the GA review process most peculiar. The quality of various GA reviews seems to vary considerably and have often little to do with the GA criteria. Some articles appear to be rubber-stamped at GA review - see for example the laughable review of a recent FA frontpage article at Talk:Sega_v._Accolade/GA1, which contains not a single word from any editor and was reviewed in a single edit - and contrast that to this one where I am being challenged on points not, to my mind, even covered by GA criteria. The review started off well, I feel, being assessed against GA critera, but has gradually drifted onto obscure points of order and irrelevant or subjective criteria. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

There are clearly people doing reviews that should not being doing reviews and there are articles being passed that should not be passed. There are also reviewers that seem to have a confrontational approach. For the former situation there is personal WP:GAR, which I occasionally use. You have, however, highlighted a possible major problem: "...where I am being challenged on points not, to my mind, even covered by GA criteria". The purpose of the review is to assess the article not to challenge the nominator. Perhaps you are responding on that basis. Pyrotec (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I reiterate as per my original response in this review that I am more than happy to improve the article as other editors see fit. I have to qualify this however with the caveat that I feel that the criteria must be objective as given in the GA review guidelines and not simply criteria of personal preference. On the specific topic of the multiple refs, again I get it - but the objections is not having a well cited statement, its in presentation of these refs, which I have outlined twice now how I intend to fix. I hope this is to everybody's satisfaction. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Again, this is done now -PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The GA criteria requires that "the prose is clear and concise" which is what I was commenting on.J3Mrs (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This disagreement on prose style is not yet resolved. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, now I have chopped and changed the sections, I need to give it another copy-edit from start to finish since the ordering has changed and sections of prose might need reworking to make sense in their new context. I am looking at this... -PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done I'm removing the "doing" tracker here, since this is a duplicate of the discussion around prose improvement in section "1a (Prose)" below. I will track the progress of my copy-edit of the prose in that thread, and close this one here as "not done" to avoid duplicate discussions in this thread -PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way I think the area referred to as Skivick is the crag that runs parallel to the structure and its cairn. And yes I have read the snippet of reference but I would need to see the context of the whole paragraph to be convinced.J3Mrs (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Since you may not have access to the source (I can't find a copy online), please find below the full paragraph from my copy of the print text of this source, which I think settles the matter:

"The first element in the name Wheeldale is from the Old English hweal 'a wheel' and is obviously derived from the arc-shaped course of the valley (PNNTY, 131). Rutmoor or Rudmoor is from the Old Norse rotinn and myrr, 'the rotten bog'. The length of the Roman road on Wheeldale Moor is known locally as the Skivick, a name preserved in the Skivick Crag (Ordnance Survey 6 inch), a rocky outcrop overlooking Wheeldale Lodge. The first element may be from the Old Norse skeid 'a track, a racecourse' (EPNS, II, 24) and the second from vik, 'a nook int he hills'."

I am not wholly convinced by your derivation either, two refs to Wiktionary seems like OR to me. J3Mrs (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:WIAGA, clause 1(a) and clause 2(c) respectively. Pyrotec (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify why refs to wiktionary count as Original Research? I did not write the content of the Wiktionary entries. I can substitute a different dictionary if you like but they all say the same thing and the cited facts are hardly controversial. WOuld this not be cutting off our nose to spite our face? -PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

As primary reviewer, I would note that I do not feel citation overload is a requirement of the GA review, although it has an impact on readability. I would be happy to pass a well-sourced article even if there are multiple citations. This would have to be changed for FA review, and I would also note upwards of 4-5 citations also impact on verifiability. Per the "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" (WP:WINARS) Wiktionary is not a good source. I don't believe that's OR, just use of a poor source. If OED has references it shouldn't be hard to change. The changes that have been made do enhance the quality of the article but this is only a GA review. LT910001 (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Wictionary are not RS.J3Mrs (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

But I'm only using Wiktionary to cite etymology of the words, which is the whole purpose of Wiktionary, surely?! I will add an additional cite to a couple of other online dictionaries that state the exact same thing though, if you think it gains us something, but I still don't understand your reasoning. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Right, added a cite to exactly the same derivation from an alternative source too. Still don't understand what you think we gain from this, but whatever, added. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Making up derivations is OR. Your interpretation would need a reliable reference for the whole word, not just the parts you say it is made from. I still done think Skivick refers to the road.J3Mrs (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are you accusing me of making up derivations? I have done no such thing. Let me post the full source of the Skivick section of etymology here to explain this all:

It is thought that Skivick /skɪvɪk/, the local name for the extant section of structure,(CITE HAYES) could derive from the Old Norse skeið or skaj, meaning a track, course or piece of way(CITE WIKTIONARY) and vík, meaning a bay(CITE WIKTIONARY) or nook between hills.(CITE HAYES) An alternative derivation could be from the surname Skivik, which is common in Norway.(CITE MYHERITAGE) Either derivation suggests that the name may have been given to the area or the structure some time during or after the Viking era (c. 798 AD(CITE WOOLF) to 1085 AD(CITE SAWYER) when Viking peoples migrated to the Yorkshire area.{CITE MULTIPLE)

And here is the Hayes source in full again for the cited para on that page -PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"The first element in the name Wheeldale is from the Old English hweal 'a wheel' and is obviously derived from the arc-shaped course of the valley (PNNTY, 131). Rutmoor or Rudmoor is from the Old Norse rotinn and myrr, 'the rotten bog'. The length of the Roman road on Wheeldale Moor is known locally as the Skivick, a name preserved in the Skivick Crag (Ordnance Survey 6 inch), a rocky outcrop overlooking Wheeldale Lodge. The first element may be from the Old Norse skeid 'a track, a racecourse' (EPNS, II, 24) and the second from vik, 'a nook int he hills'."

So you see that the cite for Skivick being from skeid and vik is cited to Hayes and that's exactly what Hayes states. Then I cite wiktionary for extra confirmation of the meaning and source of the words Hayes states make up the source of the word. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Citing an unreliable source (Wiktionary) when you had a perfectly good source is a good example of the citation overload this article suffers from. I only considered it OR because of the use of wiktionary. One cite to Hayes at the end of the paragraph is sufficient. Now I really have lost interest and removed the article from my watchlist. J3Mrs (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You still seem confused, I cited Wiktionary for the meaning of skeid and vik. The Hayes reference is to to the etymological origins of Skivick lying in skeid and vik, but Hayes is an authority of archaeology, not etymology, so I then cited a dictionary (wiktionary) on the meaning of the two words. I still don't follow your argument that Wiktionary is an unreliably source as a dictionary- if it is, what is the point of it? For the matter you logically also must believe that wikipedia is an unreliable source of encyclopaedic content, which begs the question of what on earth you are doing contributing to it. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

As for "citation overload", I would point out that that is a subjective judgement. Especially given that you challenged me on one uncited statement (that the Skivick is the name of the road, which I have now cited. And also given that the GA reviewer is asking for refs for another 15-20 uncited statements. If there is any "overciting", it is purely in response to the constant challenging of the smallest uncited statement or fact, no matter how trivial. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You may not believe that "Skivick" relates to the road, but I have a ref that says that it does, and you do not have one that says that it doesn't. So I'm not sure on what grounds you are hounding me on this?! We don't go by what we believe, we have to go on what sources state. Sources say the name applies to the road, so thats what goes in the article. This kind of challenge is why I feel the need to cite every little blasted detail, which you in turn complain about for leading to too high a citation density. There is literally no way to please you! Short version: cite says its called Skivick, so that stays. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done I consider this to be settled, unless you can find an opposing cite.

I am not convinced what you have done with the references is an improvement, in fact I find it extremely confusing and am unable to understand it, and consider the article would benefit from copyediting but I have had my say. J3Mrs (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The change to the references was to remove the citation density that you did not like. It is now simple. You click on a ref ID, it takes you to a footnote listing all the sources that back that statement. I don't see what's not to understand here? Your point on copy-editing generally I have not dismissed and is still in ((DOING)) status above where you raised it. I am addressing other points first, but will return to that one and try and achieve consensus -PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done don't believe there's a new actionable suggestion here, so marking as done -PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Read-through

I'm sorry for my tardiness; I feel this review would have been better conducted if I had, at the start, dealt with structural and readability concerns simultaneously. The languishing is probably one reason for the opined discussions above. LT910001 (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

With regard to structure, it appears this article has three main foci: (1) history, including etymology + ancient uses; roman and later uses, dating; and surveys; (2) description of the road itself, including its dimensions, physical and putative route and condition, and (3) Society and Culture, including associated myths and legends, tourism, and use in fiction. Arranging the article around these points would help present relevant points together and reduce the arbitrary feel of the structure. For example, although titled 'etymology', this really relates to history and/or the cultural significance of the name; presenting the road's dimensions, route and condition together under one section heading would help fixate the reader on the nature of the section. Surely tourism, and sites of local historical significance could be merged. LT910001 (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done I have attempted to make some structural changes to the article based on your recommendations. I have stuck to the spirit of your suggestions rather than your absolute recommendations -PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I will now do a read-through of each section of the article (I sincerely hope that there will be some reorganisation of the sections for clarity and readability, but I don't expect the content itself will change much). Just a warning, this is sentence-by-sentence, so it might look pretty horrible, but the overall quality of this article is good, so please don't be disheartened!

Etymology

• Firstly, I think this would more accurately fall under a history or culture&society subheading, as the content of this section deals with myths surrounding the causeway. The section dealing with the causeway itself could be moved to 'description', as it relates to what a causeway is and why they were constructed.

 Done Attempted this now -PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• The following are unsourced:
  • "Of these, "Wade's Causey" is seemingly the earliest name used in published sources." is uncited.

 Done Resolved by removing line -PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• • "The derivation from calx most likely can be explained by the practice in the Ancient Roman era of consolidating earthworks through trampling with the heel of the foot."

 Done - cite added to Oxford English Dictionary -PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• • "The Wades in these early English works likely relate to one or more earlier legendary figures known as Wade, or variations thereof, in Northern European folklore and legend"

 Done Cite added now -PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Wade

• This subsection could be reordered for readability, by (1) early legends of Wade, other places share the same name then (2) Wade is a "mass of tales" (3) Wade is a common surname but most likely this is not the reason for the title

 Not done I don't agree that this section needs re-ordering in the way you describe, I think it reads farily easily in reverse chronology. I have made a couple of minor tweaks, let me know what you think -PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• A clear mention of some legends at the start of this subsection would improve readability.

 Done I've tweaked it a little now, let me know if that is sufficient for you -PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Dating evidence

• Would be more appropriately placed in a 'history' section near the 'excavation' section, or altenatively in a section detailing construction.

 Done Merged this in now. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Suggest first paragraph's topic sentence leads with "A wide variety of interpretations for the structure have led, in the absence of any hard evidence, to a broad range of proposed dates for its construction, from 4,500 BC to around 1485 AD", as this is the crux of the paragraph and the prior sentences explain it.

 Done No objections to this, done -PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• "That would suggest that the structure was given its current name sometime during the Saxon era—between approximately 550 and 1066—and therefore that it must have been constructed prior to these dates. If this argument is accepted, this places the structure's date of construction as somewhere between 4,500 BC and 1066 AD." is uncited

 Done Reworded and multiple cites added. I have kept it vague and covered entire Saxon period from 410 AD rather than likely date of large scale immigration (550 AD) -PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"That would suggest that the structure was given its current name sometime during the Saxon era—between approximately 550 and 1066—and therefore that it must have been constructed prior to these dates. If this argument is accepted, this places the structure's date of construction as somewhere between 4,500 BC and 1066 AD." illustrates my point about how intertwined these sections are. I believe this supports my proposal to merge this and etymology to a history section.

 Done This is merged now -PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• suggest move 'dimensions' so that structure is: abandoment -> extant course + conditions (which are quite closely related)

 Not done I have moved these sections, but not in this manner. "Conditions" does not site well next to "extant course" since the latter is "where it is now" whereas the latter is "how it has been the last 100 years or so". Have a look and see if this is now acceptable -PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Dimensions

• Suggest now is a good time to start the 'Description' section starting with by 'extant course' (dimensions integrated here) + conditions subsection , followed by the subsection 'Historical route' and the discussion whether or not there was one. Will continue tomorrow. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done I have done this now, albeit not in exactly the manner suggested. Take a look and see what you think - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about a UK settlement, but there is guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements on how to write articles on such topics. It may provide some guidance for this article;Pyrotec (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done I didn't find this wikiproject page all that useful. I am all for structuring the article as per best practice for this type of article, but that one didn't seem particularly applicable. I'm not sure there's enough articles on old monuments of uncertain origin and date for there to be a best practice layout defined anywhere. If you do find one, however, let me know -PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. it is only "guidance" but a reviewer is entitled to use it (where and if appropriate) in assessing the article against WP:WIAGA, clauses 3(a) & (b), if the reviewer decides to do so. Its a much fairer approach than comparative assessment against other articles (that methodology has already been raised above by both the nominator and the principal reviewer). Pyrotec (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I should note that I disagree with you on this point. The GA and FA review criteria are substantially the same, meaning that it is hard to know exactly how literally to take each one in order to achieve a given article rating. The only sane solution appears to me to see if the article you are reviewing meets the GA critera as much as or more than a typical article already rated as GA. I do not see anything problematic with this approach. This discussion is of course way out of the scope of the actual review of this article. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Commentary only, nothing actionable here, marking as done -PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Where we are up to

The above is very interleaved and its starting to be unclear what remains to be done. My understanding of where we are up to is that the following still needs work:

1a (Prose)

Currently comments read "Prose is well-written, however readability is impacted by structure.". I believe that there are three matters outstanding here:

• Now that I've chopped the sections around so much they probably don't flow well one into another as prose. I will pick up sorting this tomorrow evening -PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree this needs doing LT910001 (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I've not started this still, because I've been working through your copyedit suggestions below, but to confirm, I still plan on doing a full copy-edit of the article myself from start to end this evening -PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I am starting this now for the next hour or two. If you could hold off any more copyediting or copyediting suggestions until after this is complete, I think that would be best, or else you will be trying to manage a moving target - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done I have finished my copy-edit now. I haven't necessarily fixed all typos etc (and may have introduced new ones) but I have tried to ensure that the prose flows relatively smoothly when the article is read in a single sitting from start to finish, and that information is presented in a logical order when read through in such a manner - PocklingtonDan (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• We need to do decide whether the entire article needs a general copyedit into a snappier writing style. I disagree with this needing doing but I guess this is your call -PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I will complete the line-by-line as above and provide specific examples of anything which needs copy-editing. LT910001 (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done OK, marking this as done and any future copyedit concerns flagged below and being addressed inidividually -PocklingtonDan (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• For you to see if the new structure is now acceptable of if futher changes need making -PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your changes. The new format is much better. LT910001 (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done OK, marking structure as done -PocklingtonDan (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

2a (References)

Currently comments read "With the exception of parts that are unsourced, this article is at GA standards.". I believe that I have provided refs now for all the statements you wanted cites. Let me know if not by I think I consider this section:

• Do you have any new concerns? -PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

One outstanding issue, a citation to Wikipedia. You're pointing to an image in text, so I don't think there is a need for this citation. LT910001 (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I want to cite that the sign says what I'm saying that it does, or else the statement is uncited. Its hard to cite text on an obscure real-world object without referencing an image of it, and the image happens to be hosted on wikipedia commons. I'm not sure I could find a written cite for the wording on an obscure sign in the middle of the Moors (!) But I'm not citing Wikipedia as an authority on what the sign says, I'm citing the sign for what the sign says, and the image just happens to be hosted on wikipedia. Since people challenge every single statement no matter how uncontroversial I'd rather not remove the cite altogther. Can you think of an alternative arrangement? -PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the reference. I'd say just remove the citation and leave it, as with or without, you are referring to the picture. LT910001 (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done I have not done this, but I have expanded on my uncertainty in another comment further down and flagged it as a ((QUESTION)). I'll end this thread here and pick it up in the duplicate one below, where there is more detail. This is to spare duplication. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

6a (image tags, copyright)

Currently comments read "See comments" but I see no comments from you on this, so I'm not sure what needs doing. Can you clarify this please? Need clarification of any outstanding issues in order to be able to complete it -PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Do not appear to be any flags for images relating to use on Wikipedia. Have updated table. LT910001 (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, marking as done -PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Nearing the end

At last! The end of this review is in sight. I've made a few copyedits, wikilinked to relevant articles, and small changes that I hope are relatively non-controversial in order to expedite this process. If you object I apologise (these are only intended to speed things up rather than noting every instance of a needed wikilink and so forth) and would ask you to recreate the edit instead of reverting, as changes are clumped together by section. Two changes you may comment on are: LT910001 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Remove of the title 'Doctor'. It is nonstandard to refer to medical or PhD doctors by their titles. That's based on a MOS guideline for biographical reporting.
• Concatenation of "condition" and "tourism" subsections. The "condition" section had a lot about modern management, so I feel as the section is relatively small it is easier and more accurate that they are both under the same heading.

 Done I am happy with these edits. I've also removed "Dr" in the image of Tempest Anderson, for the same reason. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

With a combination of multiple read-throughs and reordering, I am finally able to confidently say I understand the majority of content. This may be a rather odd thing to say, but as I have noted readability was one of my major concerns and I feel this article's readability has improved in leaps and bounds. LT910001 (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Excellent, I am glad to hear it. I will address the other concerns you raise shortly -PocklingtonDan (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Continued read-through

Citations Needed

The following sentences are uncited or have a citation that doesn't necessarily cover the entire sentence. This relates to the verifiability criteria: LT910001 (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• "There is some disagreement as to whether these represent part of the original structure or exist as a result of alteration of the structure in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries."

 Done I have clarified the wording and added an additional cite -PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• "The accounts of Hinderwell, Young, and Hayes & Rutter, as well as the 1854 and 2012 Ordnance Survey maps, also appear to correlate strongly as to the stated course of the structure. However, there remains no archaeological evidence to support the possible extended course to the south proposed in these sources, since the suggested route has been neither excavated nor surveyed in the modern era."

I have reworded this section, and added in several additional cites now -PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• "which may relate to the same structure as Drake observed."

 Not done I've not added a cite since I can't find one, so I have changed the wording now. Is this now OK? - PocklingtonDan (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, however there is still a short section here ("but it is unknown whether this relates either to the same structure as Drake observed, or has any association with the Wheeldale structure.") that is uncited. LT910001 (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Walley Oulton (1805), Thomas Hinderwell (1811), George Young (1817), Robert Knox (1855) and John Atkinson (1894);[61] and in the twentieth century by Thomas Codrington (1903), Boyd Dawkins, A Austen (1903), Frank Elgee (1912,1923,1933), Kitson Clark (1935), Ivan Margary (1957), and Hayes & Rutter (1964)."
  • The source that you provide is Atkinson 1891, which presumably cannot document his visit at the future date of 1894

 Done Dang, well spotted! Cite updated now to correct text. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. He'd certainly be an interesting antiquarian indeed, otherwise! LT910001 (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Raymond Hayes relates extensive excavations that he carried out between 1945 and 1950 at Riseborough, Cawthorn, Flamborough Rigg, Lease Rigg, Grosmont Priory and west of Aislaby. This work was partially funded by the Council for British Archaeology, and his findings published in an extensive study titled Wade's Causeway in 1964."

 Done Cites added -PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• "and no evidence has been gathered as of 2013 through radiometric surveys. This has led to great difficulty in establishing even an approximate date for the causeway's construction, and attempts to date the structure have relied primarily on the details of its construction comparable to other structures of more precisely established date and function."

 Done - I have reworded and added several cites now - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• "However, the Stanegate, a road of more certainly established Roman provenance, has a sinuous course similar to that of Wade's causeway."

 Done Cite added -PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• "The original sign, pictured in 1991[88] states that the structure is a Roman road, whereas new signage installed in 1998[89] admits that the origin and purpose of the structure are unknown."

I think this relates to my confusion when you raised this earlier - I am not clear how I should cite these facts. I have seen both signs with my eyes, photos of these signs are easy to find on google (eg [1] for the pre-1998 one and [2] for the post-1998 one, and the fact I'm stating is not in any way controversial and needing a strong cite. But the fact is that there is no published *text* that I can find confirming the contents of the sign. So I'm confused as to whether I cite flickr? Or I upload the images to wikipedia and cite ourselves? Or leave uncited? Some cite seems better than none (you challenged the fact, someone else is bound to at a later date) but I'm not sure what is appropriate here -PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! My meaning was it's pointless to cite Wikipedia, as that's a cyclical reference and "Wikipedia is not a reliable source." I have found some guidedance here: WP:WHYCITE, which states "A citation is not needed for descriptions such as alt text that are verifiable directly from the image itself." Alternatively, you could cite the sign directly. The closest homology I could find is for a map, which has publisher, date of production, and title. (WP:CITET) LT910001 (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

 Question: Sorry if I'm being a bit thick but I'm still unclear on this one. I want to state what the sign says, to show that the official acceptance of the structure's origins has changed. I therefore need to state the sign's written text. However I'm then making a statement that needs to be cited. So I need to provide a cite as to what the contents of the sign are. I cannot find any published work that says "the sign at the end of Wheeldale structure has text '.....'". But I can find photographs of the signs. So I want to cite the signs. If wikipedia is not a suitable source for this, can I cite flickr [[3] and [4]? I just find this very confusing, for the following reason: if I wanted an extra photo for the gallery, to show what the causeway looked like, I could walk down to the causeway and take a photograph of it, and upload this to wikipedia commons. People could then draw inference on what the causeway looked like from my photos, yet I am essentially "citing" Wikipedia here for what the causeway looks at, since I am displaying content from wikipedia commons and representing it as an accurate image of the causeway. Yet if I photograph the *sign* in the next photo I take, I am not allowed to upload this to wikipedia commons and cite it for what the contents of the sign look like and say? Do you see my point? I find this really, deeply confusing and inconsistent! I am really not understanding the cite policy here. Is it possible that you are misunderstanding the cite policy here yourself? Could we seek clarification from a third party on this point, perhaps someone who specialises in cite policy and/or referencing images? -PocklingtonDan (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable that we are essentially citing ourselves here, but as there's no guideline we could find, I won't let this hold up the review. LT910001 (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Scottish Author Michael Scott Rohan drew on the legend of Wade's Causeway, as well as wider English, Germanic and Norse mythology, when he wrote his Winter of the World trilogy while residing in Yorkshire. The books feature mention of a legendary giant, Vayde, who built a causeway across the marshes. It bore his name, Vayde's causeway."

 Done Cite added now - PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Readability criteria

• "to adopt a full 1.2 mile stretch of the causeway " Unsure what 'adopt' means. Do you mean, 'adopt' as in 'register as a historic site'?

 Done I have clarified the prose a little bit here (I meant "adopt" as in "to accept the care of"). The exact legal/historical position is a little obscure and probably beyond the scope of the article to dig into in great details. An article from the National Archives states that the Ministry of Works (then the Board of Works) "...in 1852 was incorporated in more general terms with power to accept, purchase and take lands and hereditaments".[5] and English Heritage state that "The Ancient Monuments Act of 1900 resulted in a major transfer to the Office, later the Ministry, of Works (English Heritage, Historic Scotland and Cadw are the Office’s direct successors) of historic buildings and monuments in the care of other Government departments. A further, minor, Act in 1910 allowed the government to receive monuments as gifts or bequests from their owners."[6] But fundamentally, I think it just means that they agreed to adopt and care for the monument. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, your change is noticed and appreciated. LT910001 (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• "There is some indication of later survey works by the ". Unsure what 'some indication' means. Do you mean 'some indication' as in, physical indication on site, or that there is documented evidence of survey works?

 Done prose clarified - PocklingtonDan (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• "However, amateur archaeologist James Maxim in 1965—just one year after Hayes and Rutter published their findings on Wade's Causeway—stated that he had found a medieval pack-horse trail passing underneath Blackstone Edge, which it must therefore post-date. Subsequent research by the archaeological unit of the University of Manchester determined that the Blackstone Edge road was most probably a " Is this finding accepted by third parties?

 Question: I'm not clear what you're asking me to confirm here, exactly. The Blackstone Edge Roman road was long thought to be Roman so the vast majority of sources claim it is Roman (because they were written when that was the belief). However the new research was published in 1965 and 1985 respectively. Since then the consensus is that it is not Roman but a turnpike from the eighteenth century. The last published work I can find that states definitely that it is Roman is from 1984 [7]. Everything after that states "contested" or "not Roman". Certainly the 1985 Pearson study is the last archaeological report I can find on the site. Lancashire County Council, who I believe own the site, describe it as "contentious but probably not Roman... more likely the road was an early turnpike" [8] so seem to accept the Maxim and UoM works. I'm not sure what you're asking for though, do you want me to find more cites for people accepting the Maxim and UoM studies and ref them? I'm not clear why this is necessary specifically for this one cite, since I don't have cited linking to people accepting my cites for any of my other cites, if you see what I mean? Wouldn't that be a cite of a cite or a meta-cite? Just confused what you are asking for here - PocklingtonDan (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of 'amateur' per our discussion neuters this point. LT910001 (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Readability

• Readability is greatly impacted by the use of "extant" in the earlier parts of prose. Does this refer to the visible section, or all surviving sections? Is the Skivick synonymous or not with "extant", or is this the same or different from the extant section in the Moors? This is very confusing. I strongly suggest: LT910001 (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Replace as many mentions of 'extant' and 'Skivick' as possible with either 'surviving' (referring to whole road, excavated or not), and 'visible' (referring to section which is currently visible). If you want to retain reference to Skivick, then suggest at the end of the relevant part of the road, in a separate sentence, note "This section of the road is referred to as the Skivick" and leave it at that.

 Done I have clarified in all instances exactly what I am referring to. I have not removed every single use of "extant" or "Skivick", but the intention of each statement is greatly clarified now. I hope this is acceptable to meet this requirement - PocklingtonDan (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it certainly is, and is so much more readable for it. LT910001 (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• It would greatly enhance readability if sources that you directly mention are introduced with their profession, full name, and provided a wikilink if one exists. "Chadwick states that", it would be much more readable to read "Historian Hector Munro Chadwick states that...". This relates to the readability criteria.

 Done I have now wikilinked the first instances of "Margary" and "Hayes" and given them their respective professions, and will scan for any others and give them the same treatment -PocklingtonDan (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

 Question: I attempted to do this, but all the articles I started on the various historians got nominated for deletion by some exceedingly efficient editors who seem to auto-watch new articles and nominate every single one for immediate deletion. The article will now therefore contain a sea of red wikilinks, which is not only ugly, but if anyone tries to create the articles, they will presumably get deleted again right away. This seems a bit backwards, no idea what the intention of these editors is, it hardly seems conducive to an encyclopaedia to go around deleting content, especially without even discussing it with the article editor beforehand. Madness. Waiting for your input on how best to address this please. The failing here seems to be not the article, but the over-zealous purging of new articles that are created in stub form -PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. With the changes that you've made the article is looking much better. LT910001 (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• I feel it would be much clearer if "Interpretations of the site " were renamed to "Purpose", as this section is discussing putative purposes of the road and "Interpretations" is quite ambiguous in my mind. This isn't a requirement of the GA review.

 Done I've updated the section title now to be a lot less ambiguous, to "Theories on structure's origins and purpose"; let me know if this is too wordy but it was my favoured alternative after running over a few options in mt head I think - PocklingtonDan (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• You describe two people as "amateur archaeologists" I am not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that they are unpublished or only self-published, their speculations should not be included. If they are independently published then suggest removal of "amateur". This relates to the verifiability and/or OR criteria (OR if primary sources are used to support a statement).

 Done I meant amateur in the sense that they were not engaged as archaeologists professionally as a career, in some cases because they were from an earlier era of the "gentleman archaeologist" who performed archaeology as something of a hobby but were the main archaeologists of the period. I agree that this could be misconstrued as them being somehow substandard or unpublished, which is not the case. I have cited - and am happy to add any extra cites where I might have missed any - for all their published findings - PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, you understand and have addressed my concern. LT910001 (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

This article's undergone a thorough check and I am satisfied it meets the GA criteria. I have responded to the comments above, will update the table and make the relevant changes ( Done). Very well done on creating this extensively-sourced article about such a mysterious road. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and I wish you well on your wikitravels. LT910001 (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)