Wikipedia:Peer review/List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset/archive1

List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been extensively revised by a team of editors, and I feel it is approaching the point where we can nominate it at FLC. Any advice on areas which need to be changed to meet the criteria or otherwise improve the article would be appreciated. Thanks, — Rod ^talk 20:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H1nkles

Lead

"Deposits of iron ore were located in different places to the sources of tin and copper ore necessary to make bronze..." Consider rewording thus: "Deposits of iron ore were separated from the sources of tin and copper necessary to make bronze..." It's a little cleaner and makes more grammatical sense.

Done

"Consequently, power passed into the hands of a new group of people." Who? I don't see this spelled out in the article.

I have removed this sentence

I think a reference or two are needed for the last paragraph in the lead. The iron age tribes of Sommerset and also the determination that certain settlements were pre-Roman should be referenced.

Ref added

I can't seem to get the article to save to I'll tell you here there is a superfluous "on" in this sentence portion: "...'Lake Villages' at Meare and Glastonbury which were built on on a morass..."

Done

"Scheduled Monuments are defined in the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, which defines a monument as..." Two uses of the word "define" perhaps the first one could be "listed"?

Done

"...and any works taking place within one require Scheduled Monument Consent from the Secretary of State." I think this portion of the sentence needs a little tweaking for readability: "...and any work taking place at one of these sites requires Scheduled Monument Consent from the Secretary of State." Just a suggestion.

Done

List

In the Bury Castle entry you indicate that it is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. Why this detail? Aren't all the scheduled forts in this list Scheduled Ancient Monuments? I could be reading too much into this but I'm confused why this particular entry is designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument. Am I missing something?

I've chjanged this one others may need checking

Why is Cadbury Castle called South Cadbury Camp in the description?

Changed

You always link the name of the site in the title column and sometimes it is linked in the description column but not always. This should be consistent. See Cambria Farms as unlinked and Cannington Camp as linked for examples.

Many changed but may need checking

Can the first instances of univallate and multivallate be linked? Those are terms I'm not familiar with and they are used multiple times in the list.

I can't find suitable articles to link to - I may add a sentence on this in the lead

In Dolebury camp you have 22.3 acres (90,000 m2). Throughout it has been metric first, why the change here?

Changed

Ham Hill fort has an area of 200 acres with no metric conversion.

Done

Maesbury castle has imperical 1 foot (30 cm) first and then metric, this should be switched for consistency.

Done

Same with Maes Knoll. I won't bring this up any more but I do see inconsistency throughout with the order, metric first and then imperial or vice versa.

Done - but any further checking appeciated

No conversion for Mounsey Castle for the 1.75 ha measurement.

Done

In Ruborough Camp the HA for hectacre is linked. This should be done in the first instance of the word per WP:LINK.

I've remove the link - in a suitable list defining 1st usage is difficult

"An Iron Age hill fort or enclosure on the north-facing slope of Dunkery Hill." I know you're talking about Sweetworthy but it is a sentence fragment nonetheless.

Done

Look at spacing issues and metric conversion at Tedbury Camp.

Done

"Comprises the slight earthwork remains of a univallate Iron Age hill fort, now nearly ploughed down." This is a sentence frament, it needs a subject.

Changed

The images are small and at the bottom of the list. Can they be placed alongside the list near their descriptions?
Is there a distinct difference between suspected and confirmed forts/settlements? Is there some missing piece of information that makes it suspected rather than confirmed? I'm just wondering why certain sites are suspected as being forts.
Refs look good, links are good and credible.
Overall it's a fine list, the above suggestions are nit picky to help polish it up for FLC. This concludes my review if you found it helpful please consider reviewing an article at WP:PR or at WP:GAC to help alleviate the ever-present backlog. If you have specific questions or comments please leave them on my talk page as I do not watch review pages. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your really helpful comments - I have dealt with many of them, but will take others (eg images & suspected v confirmed) to the articles talk page.— Rod ^talk 13:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by llywrch

I have two unfavorable initial impressions of this list, One is easily fixable, the other may not be.

Most of the content, on a regular basis, appears to be in the "Description" column. Any chance you could make this column wider?
I like that there is a box for plans of every hill fort. Unfortunately, the entries which lack plans are far more numerous; only 28 of the 60 entries have plans. I think this would pass FL -- & our readers agree it belonged to that level of quality -- if a clear majority of the entries had plans. I don't know how hard it is to create these plans, but if the list is going to offer this feature, it needs to be available for more hillforts.

Hope this helps. -- llywrch (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have started playing with column widths, but still need to check this in different browsers and screen resolutions etc. The comment about plans is, as you expected, a bit more difficult. These were uploaded to wikicommons in 2006 by User:Mikhailfranco (see contribs) who doesn't appear to have done anything else & doesn't appear to be contactable. The source given is The Victoria History of the Counties of England, A History Of Somerset, Volume 2. which is available online at Vol2 however I can't find these images & it seems to be about the religious houses. It seems more likely to me they relate to Vol 1 but again I can't find the images - I have access to a paper copy which I will check. If no more plans are suitably licenced and in the public domain ( CC or PD-old licenced) do you think that would be a major hurdle at FLC?— Rod ^talk 09:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if this would be a problem; having given up reasoning with the politically correct over using fair-use images in Wikipedia, I try to stay away from licensing issues. One idea which has occurred to me, though, is this: if a skilled draftsman were to redraw the plans encumbered with the wrong license, then release the result under the proper license, then as long as the source is given credit (e.g., "Plans after Example (1980)"), I believe that should solve the licensing issues. -- llywrch (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to know a "skilled draftsman" might be able to take this on? It would have to be creation from scratch as I'm not aware of any plans (however licenced) existing for the others.— Rod ^talk 08:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could offer a better suggestion than to post for help at Wikipedia:Requested pictures, Wikipedia:Graphics Lab, or Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. As for myself, I'm an average draftsman with T-square & triangle but I've never figured out the trick of how to make passable drawings with graphic software. :-( -- llywrch (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Since writing the above, I found that I happened to own a copy of Ian Burrow's Hillfort and Hill-top Settlement in Somerset in the First to Eighth Centuries A.D., BAR British Series 91 (Oxford, 1981). It contains a list of 89 hillforts in Somerset which varies at several points with this list; some of his are included in the "Suspected hill forts and settlements" section. Was there a criteria for compiling this list? No sense listing the places Burrows includes if they don't meet the criteria. Or would you be interested in knowing which items Burrow has that are not in this list? -- llywrch (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, although I'm aware that some things have moved on in the last 30 years it would be really great to highlight any others. On the talk page we debated inclusion criteria. We've also had long debates about sites such as Duncorn Hill which was thought to be an Iron Age hillfort & then shown not to be. Personally I would not include those in "suspected" but other editors have moved these into "suspected" on the grounds that stronger evidence may still be found.— Rod ^talk 08:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put the list of the hillforts Burrow lists that aren't on this list on the Talk page to this article, & let everyone else figure out which ones should be added. FWIW, Duncorn Hill isn't one of them. -- llywrch (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]