Talk:Worlebury Camp

Orphan Article

I have added several links to this article from related articles per the request given at the top. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Copper collar

The claim that "Interestingly, this collar may be unique because nothing like it has ever been found in Britain." may not apply as according to This document (page 73-74) a similar one was found in Wales.— Rod ^talk 08:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The book I had used, Worlebury: An Ancient Stronghold in the County of Somerset by Charles Dymond was written in the 1880's, so it is entirely possible that new discoveries have obsoleted some edits. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Dealt with the issue by adding information about it to the article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Logical sequence

Would it be better to move the "dates of exploration" up to the top of the article? The other sections make reference to people identified in this section, but their roles are not clear until you read right to the very end. Geof Sheppard (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree; done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Issue clarified

I hope I clarified the issue about the "larger area". Please let me know if there are more issues needing clarification. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Worlebury Camp/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've signed up for this review. I'll make uncontroversial copyedits as I read the article, and bring anything else here for discussion. Should have comments up in a few days at the latest. Sasata (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• "This fort was designed for defense, as is evidenced the number of walls and ditches around the fort." could reword to avoid repetition of "fort"
  • Second occurrence changed to site
• link bedrock in the lead
  • Done
• The final sentence of the leads not discussed in the article text. Also, when was it designated as such?
  • I've added that it was designated in 2005 - but not added anything else about this to the body of the article.— Rod ^talk 22:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • There's a repetitious "designated" now; I'd also add the name of the organization responsible for making these designations. Sasata (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I've changed designated to declared which is the term used here and added North Somerset Council & Natural England. I can't find the date it was designated as a SAM.— Rod ^talk 08:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• Are the explorations dates listed in the "Dates of exploration" section the only ones known? Why the lack of interest?
  • They are the only known dates of exploration in the sources I found. (Dymond's book only references the first two, since it was written in the 1880s.) I'm sorry, but I am not certain what you mean by "lack of interest".
    • I just thought it was odd that there was these easily accessible site of historical interest, and there was over a 100-year gap where nobody had bothered to investigate the site and write up anything about it. Sasata (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Charles Dymond returned in 1880" I'd suggest that after the full names have been introduced, only the last name needs to be used later (other instances later as well)
  • Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Finally, in 1998, the Avon Extensive Urban Study team performed the final assessment of the site." Why "final assessment"? Will there be no more excavations?
  • I changed it to "latest assessment", which was what I meant. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "This view is no longer as obvious as it once was" perhaps change "obvious" to "unobstructed" or something similar?
  • I agree, changed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "The front faces of these platforms are about 1.7 metres (5.6 ft) above the hillside, and they have ditches in front of them to improve the defense of the platforms." reword to avoid repetition of "platforms"
  • Rewritten. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "In a letter to Warre, an archaeologist who explored Worlebury Camp before Charles Dymond, Martin Atkins theorized…" I got the impression from a previous section that they had explored simultaneously, during 1851-52. When was this letter written? Who is Martin Atkins? Does Warre have a first name?
  • Removed sentence from that location and clarified who Warre was above.
  • Added full names of Atkins & Warre. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "…Martin Atkins theorized that these platforms were slingers' platforms or archers' stations.[10] Several sling stones have been found around these platforms, offering some credence to the theory that these are slingers' platforms." quadruple "platforms" are repetitious
  • Reworded. (Would you mind checking to see if it is rewritten well enough?) Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "A couple of the stones were broken as though they had been used in defending the fort." How could they tell from the way they were broken that they had been used for fort defense?
  • Changed to quote from Dymond. I am not certain how he knew; he may have surmised that they broke on people's heads. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "These two ramparts are still over 3 metres (10 ft) high." Source?
  • Ref added— Rod ^talk 09:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Rewrote and resourced to a different place since it was sourced to a wiki mirror. Sorry, I think that may have been the last remnant of when I had basically sourced this off a blog (it is the first article I ever wrote). Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "… the inhabitants of the fort raised large breastworks" is "inhabitants" the right word to use here? Is there evidence they actually lived in the fort?
  • "Inhabitants" is referenced multiple times in the sources, so I think they lived here. Also, the storage pits and circles imply that people did live here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "These rubble barriers are over 1.22 metres (4.0 ft) high almost everywhere," "almost everywhere" is vague
  • "almost everywhere" removed.— Rod ^talk 09:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Attackers would have to clear away the rubble" -> "would have had to"
  • "had" added — Rod ^talk 09:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• could you attach a date to the artist's rendition image?
  • I've added "from a book published in 1886"— Rod ^talk 09:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• what is a "transverse fosse"?
  • A fosse is a ditch dug for fortification purposes (a bit like a moat). Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "The smallest pit is merely 1 metre (3.3 ft) long"
  • Word removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "They were intended for the storage of grain" Were they "intended" or "used"? Also, passive voice;why not "They were used for grain storage" or "They were used to store grain"?
  • Changed to active voice. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Several of the pits contained the remnants of small peas and the remnants of burned woven baskets" Could we leave out the word "small"? It is certain or important that the peas were small? Also, could refactor to remove a "remnants".
  • "Small" removed and "remnants" changed to "remains". I would like to keep that word or a synonym in the article so that readers do not believe that whole baskets were found. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "However, researchers also found sling stones and spindle whorls" Why "however"? How does this sentence contrast with the previous?
  • Introductory element "however" changed to "in addition". Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• how about a more descriptive caption for the mutilated skull pic (date of picture? when was this particular skull recovered?)
  • Added. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Interestingly, this collar may be unique" Not Wikipedia's job to tell us what is interesting, let the interesting facts speak for themselves
  • Oops. Maybe a little too much POV ;) . Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "However, a related copper penannular brooch dating to the fifth or sixth century A.D." In what way is it related?
  • Added information describing how it may reduce the uniqueness of the find. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "A large number of Roman coins have been found at Worlebury Camp" What is a large number? Who found them? Where are these coins now?
  • Removed "large number" since I cannot find any sources which give an exact number other than "hoard" or "large number". Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Another coin was located by Trinity Path which leads towards the fort." When?
  • The referenced sopurce document does not give a date & I've not been able to find it anywhere elese
• "about the size of a walnut which he decides is probably a sling bullet." which->that; "decides is"->"decided was"
  • Fixed. (Also changed "records" to "recorded" to fit with past tense.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• haven't arrow heads been found at the site as well?
  • Added mention of them, but there were very few. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• link quarry
  • linked
• in the image caption "19th century quarry", what direction are we looking at? Is that one of the north or west steep cliffs mentioned earlier?
  • Caption expanded - I was on "south Road" looking north at the south side of the hill.— Rod ^talk 08:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "In 1849, a plan was made to develop houses" passive voice. Who made the plan?
  • Rewrote the section—there was no plan in 1849—it was the Improvement and Market Act of May 1842. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "This would have wiped out the entire historic landmark and destroyed all the artifacts" How do we know for sure that this plan that never happened would have destroyed all the artifacts?
  • Rewrote the section, removing that comment. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "… making it profitable to expand the villages into a town." Why villages (plural)? I thought it was previously talking about one village, Weston-super-Mare?
  • Sorry, typo (E and S keys are next to each other). Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "In the early 20th century, the Worlebury fort itself has been damaged by boys rolling stones, including some from the walls of the fort, down the hill on which it stands. The Axbridge District of the Somerset Archaeological Society was taking steps to prevent such damage from happening again." The cited report is from 1909. So what happened? Also, the fort is at the top of the hill, so how could it be damaged by rolling stones down the hill?
  • The stones came from the fort—the boys were taking the site apart. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I made a search of JSTOR for any additional information that might be included, and came up with the following:

• From JSTOR 2843521

"Worlebury camp was probably built either by the Goidel or by the Brython. This conclusion was derived from detailed consideration of the methods of construction in comparison with other encampments. It has been stated that his camp was occupied by the Belgae and sacked and destroyed by the Romans. This implies that the Belga must have driven out the Byrthons. Figs. 1 and 2 lead to the same conclusion with regard to the builders of these camps. A very elementary tactical knowledge will show that the enemies expected by the defenders of the camps lived to the north, In every case the camp is placed on the northern and lower slope of the Mendips, and backed by the higher hills, which must have been the country of those who built the camps. Such a state of affairs could only exist if the camps had been built by invaders from the south. This confirms the conclusion of Dymond, which was based in his case upon constructional details." (p. 212)

I think something from this suggesting the tribes which first established the site should be included - but I'm not sure where.— Rod ^talk 08:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed the "Dates of Exploration" section into a "History" section and added it there. Do you think this looks good? Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me.— Rod ^talk 08:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• another article mentions that "a Saxon dagger and a spear ferrule were found in one of the Worlebury hut-circle, near Weston-super-Mare ... The association of these relics with hut-circles, if they are indubitably Saxon, obviously raises an interesting problem." from JSTOR 2791336

• I don't think this one should go in - I followed up the reference given to British History Online where it says "a Saxon dagger and spear-butt are said to have been found in one of the hut-circles on Worle Hill. (fn. 2) This site has been excavated with success, and proved to be a stronghold of an earlier population; so that the Saxon relic is here but slender evidence of occupation to any extent in the period preceding the conversion of Wessex. That was not accomplished till the middle of the seventh century, and till that date, perhaps for some time longer, it was customary to bury the warrior fully armed and the housewife with her ornaments and domestic utensils." So I don't think this is strong enough evidence of anything to include.— Rod ^talk 08:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'll leave it up to your discretion if you wish to use either of these tidbits in the article. Sasata (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions and improvements. I think the article meets GA standards now. Sasata (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article Worlebury Camp passes this review, and has been promoted to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Worlebury Camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613161146/http://roman-britain.org/celtic/worlebury_camp.htm to http://www.roman-britain.org/celtic/worlebury_camp.htm
• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140605090108/http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/finalreporttextonly_tcm6-3337.pdf to http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/finalreporttextonly_tcm6-3337.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308110907/http://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/Environment/treesandhedges/woodlandmanagement/westonwoods.htm to http://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/Environment/treesandhedges/woodlandmanagement/westonwoods.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715093724/http://www.origins.plus.com/kewstoke/kewstoke.htm to http://www.origins.plus.com/kewstoke/kewstoke.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314105318/http://www.dewsburydistrictmdc.co.uk/PAS_2006.pdf to http://www.dewsburydistrictmdc.co.uk/PAS_2006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)