Talk:Danebury/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting GA review.Pyrotec (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Initial review

This article is a clear readable exposition on the Danebury hill fort; and it is well illustrated.

At this point I'm putting the article On hold. The article is based on a single source, i.e. Cunliffe's 1983 write up of his excavations from 1969-78. That itself is not necessarily sufficient a reason to fail the article; however, the source is now some 25 years old and its conclusions may not necessary fully reflect current thinking. I would like to establish whether the conclusions reached by Cunliffe 25 years ago have changed; and if so, some discussion of what these changes are (were) should appear in the article.

If they cannot be found in the next week, I'll award GA status; otherwise, I'll be looking for an update.Pyrotec (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Review

The article is quite readable and well illustrated; and has the makings of a GA, but I don't consider that it is currently at GA standard.

There is some doubt about the current validity/accuracy of the information given in the article and the scope of the article, which is based on a single source. For example, reliable sources (Cunliffe) state that excavation extended over 20 seasons: 1969-88 and that excavations of comparable sites continued from 1989-97; whereas the article states 1970s (WP:Lead) and 1969-78 (Investigation). As this article is based (wholly) on a book published in 1983 (and probably written 1981-2) it cannot realistically cover more than the first 50 % to 75 % of the excavation period.

As a way forward, English Heritage provide a pdf downloadable version of their monograph The Wessex Hillforts Project: Extensive survey of hillfort interiors in central southern England, by Andrew Payne, Mark Corney and Barry Cunliffe, (2006) at [1], which provides some information on Danebury (and comparable sites) and an extensive bibliography. I suggest, in the first instance, that the article is reviewed against Payne, Corney and Cunliffe (2006); and I will kept the article On Hold.Pyrotec (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice find, I had no idea English Heritage did full publications online. I'll take a look at the source and see if I can get the article up to scratch. Nev1 (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review

OK you can have your GA, but I think it would be useful to add information about the geophys, i.e. magnetometer, survey done in 1997, that is discussed in Payne, Corney and Cunliffe (2006) on pp 59-62 (and possibly elsewhere in that paper).Pyrotec (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A reasonable article, but based on a limited number of sources

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Yes, but limited in number

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Consideration should be given to improving the scope of the article by including a discussion of the 1997 magnetometer survey.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   A reasonable article that has scope for some improvement: particularly coverage of work carried out after the end of the 20-season excavations.Pyrotec (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there is some scope for slightly expanding the coverage of this site (see above), but I'm awarding GA at this point.Pyrotec (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)