Talk:Glastonbury Lake Village/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 22:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have some experience with British archaeology articles here at Wikipedia, so I feel qualified to field this one, Rodw, if you don't mind ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are a few areas where the prose could be tightened up (I have made a few small revisions of my own), but I am confident that it nevertheless fits GA status.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	~~The Cunliffe reference does not cite a page number (if you are unable to access this volume, I can, so let me know).~~
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I believe that this article could certainly do with a great deal more detail (such detail undoubtedly exists in the sources cited), but in its current state it fits GA standards.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I'm a little concerned with File:Excavation of Glastonbury Lake Village.jpg; it could have been taken in 1907, and had the unknown photographer lived on till 1945 or later, then it would not count as being in the public domain. It would be a shame to lose it, as it is a great image and works well in this article, so would there be a way of looking into the identity of the photographer at all ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Some of the captions could be lengthened, but otherwise fine.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~I'll wait to see responses before I pass this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)~~[reply] I'm happy to pass this now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have added a page number for Cunliffe (and updated the isbn to the 13 digit format). I've expanded the caption about the bowl - do others need more? I'm not sure what to do about the picture of the excavation. It comes from this page where it gives date taken as being between 1892 and 1907 and I have seen it reproduced in books etc but I don't know of any way to identify the photographer or find his date of death etc. Any suggestions about how to proceed with this appreciated. I would like to keep one of the images of the excavation in the article. Alternatives are: File:Excavation of Glastonbury Lake Village 2.jpg, File:Excavation of Glastonbury Lake Village 3.jpg etc but I think the same issues about unclear date and unknown photographer are going to apply.— Rod ^talk 08:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the captions and the Cunliffe reference; thanks for correcting those. The issue of the excavation image is more complex. I'd like to see it retained, because it is a great image, but frankly we just can't be sure whether it is in the public domain or not (thankfully it will fall into the public domain in the next decade or so, I'd have thought). On the link provided it does specify that it is "Reproduced by permission of English Heritage", which makes it seem like it may still be in copyright. Realistically, I think that it will have to go, although perhaps could be included under a "unique historic image" license ?

Do you think {{PD-UK-unknown}} would apply?— Rod ^talk 12:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like it should do the trick! I'd never come upon that one before, so I may use it myself in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed (and I did the other two while I was there).— Rod ^talk 19:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although not directly related to the GAN, it would be nice to see this article expanded with more detail in future (particularly if it is to head to FAC). In particular I think it could do with more background on the Iron Age southwest, and on Iron Age lake villages more generally (if I may be so bold, I'd recommend that you take a look at a British archaeology article that I authored, Coldrum Long Barrow, to see what I mean). Of course, that is no impediment to this article passing GAN, but is something to bear in mind. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A valid point. I could add a "context" type section some which could be adapted from sections of History of Somerset, however I think there is a balance to be struck between lots of more "general" content and giving readers the opportunity to follow links for more context. (Slightly off topic but seeing your excellent work on Coldrum Long Barrow would you be willing to take a look at Stoney Littleton Long Barrow which is fairly local to me.)— Rod ^talk 12:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]