Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sweet Track/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 SandyGeorgia 19:30, 7 August 2010 [1].

Sweet Track edit

Sweet Track (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): — Rod talk 08:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sweet Track on the Somerset Levels is one of the oldest engineered roads known. The article has been expanded and improved as part of the British Museum Project and recently obtained GA status. I believe it now includes all of the limited information available about the trackway and meets the FA criteria.— Rod talk 08:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "It is one of the oldest engineered roads known." sounds like a half-completed sentence
  • Reworded
  • "Likewise, it was the oldest timber trackway discovered in Northern Europe until the discovery of a 6,000 year-old trackway in Belmarsh prison." Likewise to what? Repetitive on "discovered/discovery", and it might be helpful to provide a date of the discovery of the Belmarsh prison track so we know when Sweet Track stopped being known as the oldest timber track
  • I've reworded this in conjunction with point above. The Belmarsh track was discovered in 2009 & I've added that - but I can't find a wikipedia article on it.
  • "but it is now known to have been built very close to the course of an earlier structure, the Post Track." This part of the sentence sound like you mean the location, rather than date
  • Reworded
  • removed
  • "The track was built between what was then an island at Westhay," -- what is it now?
  • added a comment that much of the marsh has been drained
  • can "morass" be wikilinked? Also "brushwood" and "bracken" - I think these might be unfamiliar words with people outside the UK
  • Morass wikilinked, but redirects to marsh - see comment above. Bracken wikilinked, but I can't find a suitable wp article for brushwood
  • Spell "ICI" out in full
  • Done
  • As I was reading though the rest of the article, I noticed that much of the stuff in the Lede is not repeated or looked at in more detail, in the main body. The WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize all the main points of the article, but there are 4 references in the Lede, including bits about it being an SSSI that is not mentioned in the Conservation section, Belmarsh Prison, or about it being the oldest road ever.
  • I will return to this later
  • I've now moved the references & text they related to into the sections of the main body of the article, but left mentions of them in the lead.— Rod talk 22:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Variations on spelling of "Jadeitite axehead" and "Jadeite axe head" Is Jadeitite and Jadeite the same thing because they each have an ariticle of their own.
  • I originally used Jadeite as that is what the sources said but I am assured by the curators at the British Museum that Jadeitite is correct. I'm not sure if the two wp articles should be merged.
  • The article says the British Museum has some track in storage. Can we get some photos of it perhaps through GLAM/BM?
  • Is there also any possibility of an image of the axehead?
  • I've not been able to trackdown whether this specific axe head is in the BM at present.

That's all I have after a quick review. It's a very interesting subject, but I don't believe the article is ready to be featured just yet. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments, I believe some have been addressed to improve the article however I will return to some of the others.— Rod talk 16:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Ref 13: The publisher of the source article is given as "ADHS". The WP dab page gives a number of organisations to which this acronym applies, none of which are relevant to your article. The website name on the source article is "ads.ahds.ac.uk", which refers to the Archaeology Data Service, ADS, part of the Arts and Humanities Data Service, or "AHDS". However, ADS and AHDS are facilitators, not publishers. The article in question, by J.M. Coles, occupies pp. 86–89 of a book or journal. Can we establish which book/lournal? Then we have the publisher.
It is a research report by the Council for British Archaeology which is hosted on the servers of the Arts and Humanities Data Service - hopefully resolved
  • Ref 17: "British Museum" should not be italicised, as it isn't a print medium (see 24)
  • Done BM was given as work rather than publisher
  • Ref 18: Similar to 13 above - an article by I.F. Smith, but where from? (Author's name should be given, as with 13)
It is a conference paper by the Council for British Archaeology which is hosted on the servers of the Arts and Humanities Data Service - hopefully resolved
  • Refs 25 and 31: Are "Thomas Telford Ltd" and "Telford Press" the same publisher? (Thomas Telford Ltd is an engineering firm, and Telford Press could be their publishing arm, or it could refer to the town of Telford.)
  • I'm having problems with this as both books have gone back to the library.
  • Ref 25 Amazon says "Thomas Telford Ltd", WorldCat says "Published for the Institution of Civil Engineers by Thomas Telford" and Google Books says "Thomas Telford".
  • Ref 31 Amazon says "Telford Press" but gives the publisher as "CRC Press", WorldCat says "Caldwell, N.J. : Telford Press" and Google Books says "CRC Press" so I think I should probably change it to CRC press but I think that may be a US publisher & Telford a UK publisher - any help appreciated.— Rod talk 20:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a little investigating. Thomas Telford Ltd is fine as publisher for the first book. The Barbara Purdy (ref 31) is an American book, published by CRC Press, an offshoot of Taylor and Francis. "Telford Press" is nothing to do with Thomas Telford, it appears to be the name of a printer in Pennsylvania. I recommend you change publisher to CRC Press, and I'm sorry if my initial query confused you.
Thanks I've changed it to CRC Press as suggested - hopefully sorted now.— Rod talk 21:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Otherwise, no problems with these sources. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: since I carried out the sources review yesterday there have been numerous alterations to the referencing, and I can no longer follow my checklist above. For example, the J.M. Coles ref seems to have vanished. Lots of other changes, too. Can you briefly summarise what has changed, since I don't want to have to go through the whole thing again. Brianboulton (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to note I thought I'd responded to each of your comments above. I made an error with the Coles one, which I have now correctedand show is a chapter in Susan Limbrey: Effect of Man on the Landscape: The Lowland Zone. York: Council for British Archaeology. It is now ref 9 as I also responded to the comment above by Matthewedwards about the four refs in the lead which have now been moved into the main body of the article. Hope this makes sense?— Rod talk 19:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support

  • "The track was built between what was then an island at Westhay, and a ridge of high ground at Shapwick close to the River Brue": I think "was then" should be replaced with "in the early 4th millennium BC" so that it stands independently from the lead.
  • Done
  • "Other areas such as the nearby Meare Pool provide some evidence of the purpose of the structures": so what are the conjectural purposes? This is left hanging slightly; a brief sentence would be enough to rectify things.
  • Done
  • " Clay was later spread over the peat to provide raised, stands for occupation": should the comma after raised be removed?
  • Done
  • It might be simpler to say "during" rather than "in the course of", but I don't think the latter hinders the prose so it might not be important either way.
  • Done
  • "... an assistant lecturer at Cambridge University": an assistant lecturer in what? Establishing his credentials will help convey to readers that his opinion is worth noting.
  • Done
  • There are a few instances when the same word is used twice in the same sentence, making for slightly uncomfortable reading:
  • " The track was discovered in the course of peat digging in 1970, and is named after its discoverer". How about "found" instead of one of the discovers?
  • Done
  • " The project undertook a range of archaeological projects in the area". Activities might be better on the second occasion?
  • Done
  • " The wood is usually stained brown by tannins dissolved in the acidic water and represents the early stages in the fossilisation of wood": process instead of the second "wood"?
  • Done
  • I think the two sub-paragraphs on dendrochronology could comfortably be merged and moved to a more prominent place (perhaps immediately before the bit about bog-wood). I found out how the axehead was dated before Sweet Track itself.
  • Done (I presume the 2nd sentence here relates to the point below)
  • "Eight radiocarbon determinations of the date of the axe suggest it could be around 3200 BC": it's a bit involved and I think could be simplified a bit. Something along the lines of "Radiocarbon dating of the peat the axe was discovered in suggests it was deposited around 3200 BC" [I'm guessing that's how the dating was done, but axeheads can't be radiocarbon dated].
  • Done - BUT this assertion is not explicity stated in the reference cited to support this sentence.
  • In that case more ambiguous phrasing might be better (just "Radiocarbon dating suggests the axehead is from around 3200 BC") as there's no point second guessing their methods. Nev1 (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A geophysical survey of the area, reported in 2008, showed...": I think this could be simplified to "A geophysical survey of the area in 2008 showed that..."
  • Done
  • It might be worth mentioning the Scheduling in the main body of the article and explaining what protection it gives to the site. I did something similar at the end of the Picturesque ruin section in the Bodiam Castle article.
  • Done
  • "A 500 metres (1,600 ft) section": 500-meter should be hyphenates as it's an adjective, although when I tried to add |adj=on to the template myself it didn't seem to work.
  • Done

A good article which answered most of the questions I had about the topic. The conservation section in particular is very detailed. It's not something I'm familiar with but I'm sure the expert review Rodw received should ensure the article is comprehensive. The prose could do with a little work, but things look in good shape. Nev1 (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the helpful and detailed comments. With the caveat above about radiocarbon dating of the axe head I hope these have been addressed.— Rod talk 17:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All comments resolved (apart from the bit about the axehead, but that's an easy fix) so I'm switching to support. Nev1 (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment – Just to add to the source-related comments above, some of the references (current numbers 8, 9, 11, 16, 19, 25 and 34 by my count) need indicators that they are in PDF format. There is a format= parameter in the cite templates, which may prove helpful. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - although Template:Cite web describes it as an optional parameter & the wiki software adds the PDF logo whether you use this or not.— Rod talk 12:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Nominator will be away and have no internet access between the 8th and 20th August.— Rod talk 21:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Capitalization of article titles in inconsistent.
  • A better photo of the track, preferably in situ, would be nice. I can't tell what I'm looking at in the current photo.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thanks for your comments. Which article titles are inconsistent? If it is the names of the sources in the references, I believe these follow the capitalisation in the sources but I would be happy to change them if you could be specific. I would love to have a better photo, either of the track in situ or the specimens in the British Museum or Museum of Somerset, or the reconstruction, however none of these have been released with suitable licenses for use on wp, despite my requests.— Rod talk 09:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I made a few copyedits to the article but generally I think its a nice piece of work, and deserved of FA status. One question I have though - "Built in the 39th century BC" - the rest of the article uses 3807 BC as a format. Stick to one or the other, if possible :) I haven't reviewed the images or references, just the text and content. A photograph of the preserved sections would be nice, there are a few on Google Image search so it might be possible to grab something with a compatible licence. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Thanks for your comments and edits. I have replaced "39th century BC" with "3807 or 3806 BC" as suggested. I've looked further for images but still can't find any (even the ones of the reconstruction) with suitable licences.— Rod talk 12:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My son is an artist, so I've asked him if he could produce a couple of drawings - one of the track as it would have looked at the time (based on the reconstructions) and a cross section to show the construction details - would that solve the problem? Hopefully he will have them done in the next day or so and I'll upload them. Richerman (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be great. There is a cross section diagram here & the best photo I've seen (of the reconstruction) is here.— Rod talk 17:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll send that to him. Also there's another book "Sweet Track to Glastonbury: Somerset Levels in Prehistory (New Aspects of Antiquity) by the Coles - out of print but available here. There's also an excellent photo of the excavation on the cover of New Scientist here. May be worth asking if you could use it. Richerman (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. My local library has been trying to get me a copy of that book for two months - I suspect it is a useful source however some of the material may well be out of date by now. Some of the material in the book is also in the journal articles which are cited. I have emailed the New Scientist about their cover image.— Rod talk 18:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to ths it should be available at Eastbourne and Hastings libraries and this says there is one at Mere library but it's marked "not on loan" - presumably that means it's for reference only. Maybe you should point them at the first two :) Richerman (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I put in a request for this during the GA review back in June (see Talk:Sweet Track/GA1) but they have still not been able to locate a copy, even though their catalogue says it is available in local libraries - I might have to travel to one of them!— Rod talk 19:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised you can by a used hardback copy for £1.48 + P&P from Amazon so I've ordered one. I missed it the first time as it says "from £12" but that's what the paperback copies are selling for. £4.23 is probably less than the train fare to one of those libraries! Richerman (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Do we really need four different bars, designation numbers, and approval dates for Scheduled Ancient Monument status in the infobox? Can't these be consolidated? This one is not as bad as the appalling Template:Infobox World Heritage Site (join the campaign to improve that here), but it still clutters up the top of the page with bureaucratic details likely to be of interest to no one.
  • I have removed two of the reference numbers for sections designated as Scheduled Ancient Monuments where no date or references were given, but kept the two others where full details are available - I presume this is what you meant. I will post a message at WP:HSITES where the infobox was developed highlighting your concerns.— Rod talk 09:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally the trackway itself seems well covered, but there is little contextual information on the society that built it, and it although I realize that will be largely speculative. Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like there may be a little bit of information in Prehistory of the Somerset levels i.e. the purpose of the trackways etc. Richerman (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some background detail on the builders as suggested - more may come to light when the two books arrive that I've ordered: Sweet Track to Glastonbury and Prehistory of the Somerset levels. Richerman (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - with a few comments:

  • Belmarsh prison - should probably avoid the redirect here.
  • Done
  • chipped flint axe - another redirect that should be fixed.
  • Sorry I don't get this one - it is piped to flint tools
  • ...which is a redirect to flint tool. You should probably pipe directly to that.
  • Thanks makes sense now & done.— Rod talk 12:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3,900 BC - why the comma here? Everywhere else you leave it out.
  • Done
  • but these forests began to be cleared - passive voice is awkward here, the forests didn't clear themselves. Perhaps something like "but local inhabitants began to clear these forests".
  • Done using your wording
  • Please remove the "Retrieved" parameter from the citations. Although the templates include it, which prompts people to use it, it's inappropriate for printed material like books. Whether or not the link stays live, the citation will always be good, since it is printed, and will never change. All you're really doing is telling people when you read the page, which is not of interest or helpful to them.
  • Hopefully I've got all of these now
  • Although the description of the construction is thorough, a diagram would really help, if you could make one.
  • Agreed & I believe Richerman has a plan for this.

In general, well-written, FA quality. Jayjg (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and support.— Rod talk 07:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with that change. Removing the access date means that the link to the page in google books is no longer displayed so the reference can only be checked from the printed copy. As long as it's available online why not use it? Richerman (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm losing it :) Richerman (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a diagram of the cross section which should hopefully make the construction clearer. Richerman (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, it really makes it clear how it was built, and how sophisticated the construction was. Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sweet_Track/archive1&oldid=1091467290"