Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Offham Hill/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 August 2022 [1].

Offham Hill

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sixth article I've nominated about an archaeological site; like most of the previous ones, this is about a causewayed enclosure in Sussex. Sadly the site has been almost completely destroyed, first by quarrying and then by ploughing, so the single excavation, in 1976, represents all we are ever likely to know about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review-pass Buidhe public (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Source for area?
Added; it was cited in the body so I copied that cite up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason some short cites include full author name/initials and others only surname?
Inability to check my own work seems the most likely reason. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN9? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. There are two Curwens with similar names, which is probably why I did that, but the other Curwen is not cited here so I've removed the first names. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fn24: formatting doesn't match other multi-author refs
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is Sheridan 2011 or 2012?
2012. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No citations to O'Connor 1977b
Fixed; the material that should have been cited to that was incorrectly cited to James. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what's going on with Drewett? It's an article but has other sources within it? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- it's common in archaeological dig articles for the main citation to be to an article with a main author, but for that article to contain contributions relating to specialist areas -- molluscs, bones, pottery, flint -- which are individually credited inline with subheads. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; I think everything has been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: nothing much to say. A very well put-together piece of work and comprehensive as far as I can tell as a non-expert; it certainly tells me everything I want to know about the subject. Just to be pedantic:

The use to which these enclosures were put has long been a matter of debate Suggest something like "the purpose of these enclosures" for simplicity's sake
Yes, good idea. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking was listed as a scheduled monument doesn't make sense; listing and scheduling are two different statutory processes.
I take your point, but "scheduled monument" is a noun phrase, and I needed a verb in the sentence, and "scheduled as a scheduled monument" is obviously less than ideal. Can you see a better way to put this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe "designated" is the verb Historic England uses. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are there no viable targets for a see also section?
There are other similar sites in Sussex, which are accessible via the category link at the bottom. I could add some of those, but that does seem to me like a category listing rather than a typical "See also". There's a link to causewayed enclosure in the article, and a link to Neolithic British Isles, which are the main two contextual articles. I'm open to suggestions for other links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there/could there be a list of these sites in England/Sussex? Of course, that's outwith the scope of this FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's this, in my user space, but I don't think it's ready for article space yet. It's too close to being a copy of the list in the back of one of the main references. I agree that it would be a good "See also" link when I have it ready to move to article space. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

Marking my spot. FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not tagged as part of any Wikiprojects.
Tagged for Sussex and Archaeology. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Drewett is duplinked.
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Offham Hill was excavated in 1976 by Peter Drewett" by this time he has already been mentioned multiple time, so should not need his first name.
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"near Lewes, East Sussex, England" Should start with a capital N, as in other infobox entries?
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Location of Offham Hill" Usually names are not bolded in captions?
Left over from before I edited, I think. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"about 1 ha" Convert, as you do in the infobox?
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"about 50 m south" Convert.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any photos of the area today?
There are some visible here, but none specify that they're of the site, or show the quarry edge. I could use one of the general ones of the overall hill, but the article is really about the site, not the hill, so I am hesitant to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be nice for establishing context under "Site", but up to you. FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You introduce some persons by expertise, but not Peter Drewett.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"10 cm of material, described by Drewett as "rubbly chalk", survived. The ditches were of varying depth; none were deeper than 80 cm" Convert measurements.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worked flints and flakes and cores could be linked to Stone tool, Flake tool and Prepared-core technique. Flint axe and Scraper (archaeology) could also be linked where mentioned, as well as other relevant terms not familiar to layreaders.
"to the Romano-British occupation" Link.
Link Radiocarbon dates at first instead of second mention in the article body.
All done; I linked to flake tool from the first mention of worked flakes, rather than the first mention of flakes, as those would have been mostly waste flakes. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looking nice to me. FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

Prose review. I write history articles but not archeological digs, and not of this time period, so consider my subject-matter expertise to be quite small.

"including about 7,000 worked flints, nearly 300 sherds of pottery, a human burial, and other finds including more human bone and some animal remains." Why separate the last two? Suggest "including about 7,000 worked flints, nearly 300 sherds of pottery, a human burial, human bone, and animal remains." This will make it shorter.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"and radiocarbon dating of some charcoal found in one of the ditches" Delete some, as it is unnecessary
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The construction of these enclosures took only a short time," Delete only as unnecessary
I'd like to keep this; the "only" is emphasis, to tie in with the point made in the rest of the sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"since substantial labour would have been required, for clearing the land," delete the first comma
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"and suggested to E. W. Holden that it might be a Neolithic causewayed enclosure." Who is E.W. Holden and why is he important? Perhaps add a job title for them here?
I would if I had one. The source says nothing about him; I think I have to mention him as his report is one of the sources, and his inspection is part of the reason the site was investigated, but I have no way to be more specific. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"such as Barkhale Camp, Whitehawk Camp, and Combe Hill," should these be wikilinked?
They certainly should; I can't believe I omitted those links. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"with the most likely dates (68%) between 3630 BC and 3505 BC." Is this percentage referring to the authors' certainty of the dates? If so I think this should be clarified in the article.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the lede, and all of the information there is in the article body.
Infobox information is cited or in the article body. While not necessary for my support, the footnote for "Area" and "Designated" are unnecessary because they are cited in the body.
Removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Ping me when the above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, thanks for the review. Most addressed, with comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

"The site was designated a scheduled monument in 1954." As you have said that it was first identified as a causewayed enclosure in 1964, a few words on the reasons for the original designation would be helpful.
The current listing page talks about the causewayed enclosure in the "Reasons for Designation" section, and unfortunately doesn't say anything about the 1954 reason. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point you make in the FAC intro, that the site is so damaged that further investigation will not be possible, seems worth making in the lead.
Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"dates range from before 4000 BC in northern France". No change needed, but presumably the fact that causewayed enclosures first appeared in northern France implies that they were invented there, not imported with the first farmers?
That seems logical. Most of my sources are about English enclosures, and I don't have much that takes about how they were transmitted, but I think you have to be right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
E. W. Holden. Maybe "the archaaeologist Eric Holden". See [2].
Thank you! Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"What remains is two concentric circuits of ditches". From what you say below is "remains" correct? Should you use the past tense?
I think this is OK, because the ditches were dug into the chalk so the ditches are still there, under the ploughsoil. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. Just a few quibbles. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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