Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whitehawk Camp/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 February 2021 [1].

Whitehawk Camp[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Neolithic causewayed enclosure in Sussex. This is the second in what I hope will be a series of these articles; the last one was Knap Hill. Causewayed enclosures are a very early relic of the British Neolithic, dating from about the first half of the fourth millennium BC; nobody knows exactly what they were used for, though there are plenty of theories. The article has benefitted from a very thorough and helpful review by Dudley Miles, and also from a local editor, Hassocks5489, who took some local photos including the one used in the infobox. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Whitehawk_camp_sketch_1821_Skinner_British_Museum_Add_MS_33658_f._68.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    Good question; I assumed it was nineteenth century because my source didn't say. Have dug a bit and I think it must have been 1830 1930, since our article on Skinner lists his journal as having been partly published in 1930 and gives a range of BM MS pages that includes this one. I think that makes it PD-UK and I would need a fair use tag. It's currently on Commons, so if you agree I will tag it for deletion there and upload it here as PD-UK with a FUR. You didn't mention File:Whitehawk camp sketch from east 1821 Skinner BM Add MS 33658 f. 68.png; I assume the same will apply there? That's not on Commons yet so if you agree I will change the licence and add a FUR. Is there an age limit for this rule, by the way? Any ms. in the BM prior to Gutenberg has not been "published" unless an image is republished in a printed work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which PD-UK tag would you want to use on the first? On the second, there's a pre-1926 publication listed, which would make it PD in the US; if you're wanting to move it to Commons you'd just need to sort out UK status. On your last question, which rule are you asking about an age limit for? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the first, I mistyped 1830 for 1930, so it's {{PD-UK}}, I think. I'll upload it locally, get it deleted on Commons, and add a FUR. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That tag would have this be PD under URAA, would it not? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      In c:File:UK non-Crown copyright flowchart.pdf I think we're following the left-hand path all the way down, which means it became public domain in the UK in 2000 since publication was in 1930. That's after the URAA date. Following c:Commons:Hirtle chart, I think we're in "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations", in the pre-1978 section, in either the second or third case (I strongly doubt it was ever published in the US but can't prove it). That means 95 years after 1930, so 2025. Am I misinterpreting these? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      As there is an author listed, why would we be following the left-hand "author unknown" path?
      I'm starting to think I have some sort of learning disability for image rules; I keep misreading things. OK, so it's Yes/Yes/No/Yes/Yes, and copyright expired in 1980, so then it's public domain in the US according to that table. But the Hirtle chart, which I would use to figure out the commons licence template to use, seems to disagree -- or am I misreading that too? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      If it was PD in the UK in 1980, in the absence of US publication or copyright renewal I would expect it to fall into the first category of "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations", in the pre-1978 section - PD before the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I've changed the licence to {{PD-1996}} for both: [2], [3]. I think that completes everything you pointed out in both the image review and source review; thanks again for your patience. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the second, that attribution is my copy-paste mistake; it was not published in that 1912 source. I took it from a 2001 source but as with the first, it would have been in the 1930 edition of Skinner's diaries, so PD-UK, delete from Commons, and a FUR. I'll do both these today unless you tell me otherwise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant, for example, suppose a hand-copied ms. from the 12th century is first printed in a book this century, does that still fall under copyright, even though there is no artwork, just writing, because it's hand-written? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Have a look at the "Never published, never registered" section here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Since Skinner died in 1839, if these rules had been effect in 1909 his work would have become public domain at that time. I assume that these rules came into effect after 1930 so Skinner's work is under copyright still? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I don't follow - is there a previous rule you're looking at? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      In the section you pointed me at it says "Unpublished works|Life of the author + 70 years|Works from authors who died before 1950" which I took to be the applicable case. This rule, if it had been in effect in 1909, would have made Skinner's work public domain, wouldn't it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Whitehawk_camp_aerial_view_1930_Williamson.jpg: what is said in the source about the provenance of this image?
    The only statement is beneath the caption, where it says "(Reproduced by permission of the Controller of H.M. Stationery Office.)". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Whitehawk_camp_excavation_plan_1929_and_1932-1933.png needs a US PD tag. Ditto File:Whitehawk_camp_excavations_1929_and_1935.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Having now read more image policy, I now realize that if something is UK-PD it still needs a fair use tag. I would like to keep these as they are clearly very useful, but I don't think I can come up with a FUR that would work and also keep them at a scale that makes them readable. They won't be PD in the US until 2034, since the author died in 1938, unless I am misinterpreting the rules (always possible). Do you agree? If so I'll tag them for deletion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The given tags would put UK expiration after the URAA date. Unless there is another reason for them to be PD, or simultaneous US publication, you are probably correct that they are non-free in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are so useful to the reader that I reduced them to under 100K pixels and put in FURs; they're not very readable at that scale but I think they're still helpful to have. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you employ "et al" for three-author works
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use pp. and dashes for multiple-page citations, and be consistent in whether there's a comma after the date
    Fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN39: work parameter is not needed
    Removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN40: don't need to repeat "Culture24" so many times
    I removed the "work" parameter; the attribution at the web page is to "Culture24 Reporter", which is effectively no attribution -- I could remove that too if you think it's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing full source information for Allcroft 1908, Williamson 1929
    Added Allcroft; the two Williamson cites were an error; they should have pointed to Williamson 1930. Both are fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN47: don't include work as part of the title
    I'm not sure what you meant here but I think this edit is the fix you're asking for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN52: source link gives a more specific work title; date format should be consistent
    I fixed the date. The title tag in the target page is "Bosing - Oxford Reference", which repeats the publisher, so I'd removed it as unnecessary. I've restored it -- I assume that's what you're looking for? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No - Oxford Reference compiles entries from a number of different reference sources, and this one in particular is from The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK; have changed the work to that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN95: the Centre is a publisher here, not a work
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No citations to Drewett. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, thanks, as always; sorry this was a bit of a mess. I think I've cleared up almost all the points but there are a couple of questions above for you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have read through your edits to the citations to try to learn from them, and read some of the documentation, e.g. here; I hadn't realized that "website" and "work" were synonyms for cite web and cite news; that will save me from some errors in the future. Thanks for the help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • Almost all my concerns have been dealt with, but I have a few further comments.
  • "The site has been scheduled as an ancient monument." This is not quite right. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 defines an ancient monument as a scheduled monument or "any other monument which in the opinion of the Secretary of State is of public interest by reason of the historic, architectural, traditional, artistic or archaeological interest attaching to it". It would be more accurate to say that the site has been designated as a scheduled monument.
    I used your phrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I previously raised the question of whether Neolithic is capitalized. You are still inconsistent on this.
    Sorry; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 1929 section you say that material in the ditches had been washed in, but for 1932-33 remains had been deliberately buried. Is this different areas or different interpretation? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reworded the 1929 section to make it clear that Sygrave is talking about a specific layer, found in all three excavations, which produced the most finds. The "deliberate burial" mentioned in the 1932-3 dig section refers only to that particular skeleton. Is that clear enough with the current wording? I don't really want to repeat Sygrave's assessment in all three pre-war dig sections -- I put it in the first one because Sygrave is specifically contrasted to Curwen's comments there, and with the new wording I hope the reader will understand it applies to the following sections. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Placeholder. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at a map, and it had me scratching my head. I can now unscratch. As it were. Thanks. Mike.
  • Link rescue dig
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was found to date to the Bronze Age". It would be helpful if the approximate boundaries of this period were given.
    See comment below about the Bronze Age. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to create tools such as points" "points" links only to points used as projectile weapons. Is that what you intended?
    Yes; the source only says points but that's the usual meaning in archaeology. The source says "These splinters would usually then be removed and worked into finer tools such as points." I think it would be OK to make this "projectile points" in the article if that would be clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As it seems that the reference to "points" is actually entirely to 'projectile points', then yes, I think adding 'projectile' in the article would be helpful.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the reconstructed face of the woman found in the 1930s excavations". Maybe 'the reconstructed face of the woman whose remains were found in the 1930s excavations'?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link allotment gardens.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scheduled Ancient Monument". Should the initial letters be lower case.
    I checked usage in the Times and it is generally lower case, so I've changed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "arrow head"; I think that you can have either 'arrow-head' or 'arrowhead'.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including pigs and cattle". Either 'including pig and cattle' or 'including those of pigs and cattle'.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British Bronze Age" is mentioned 2 times and "Bronze Age" 5. What differentiates them?
    The Bronze Age starts with the use of bronze and ends when iron starts being exploited, but this doesn't happen at the same time everywhere, so the dates of the Bronze Age depend on where you're talking about. (See {{Bronze Age}} for some example dates.) That's why there's a difference between the British Bronze Age and the general term Bronze Age. For Bronze Age Britain our article says c. 2500 BC to c. 800 BC; I'd have to check a couple of sources to be sure that's the latest usage but it's about right. However, see the first section there about the disagreements about the boundary. I originally didn't mention the Bronze Age at all, and just gave dates, but Dudley felt it was important to draw the distinction since I did mention the Neolithic, and I think he was right about that -- the southeastern ditch may not have a Neolithic origin, and not saying Bronze Age but giving dates would imply those later dates were in the Neolithic. What do you think the best approach is -- just use "Bronze Age", and put some of this detail in a footnote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. There are probably several ways of approaching it that would work. Off hand I would favour using "British Bronze Age" throughout and footnoting the period this specifies at first use. I would be inclined not to include the information on the dating of the period varying geographically, although if you felt that it may aid a reader's understanding I certainly wouldn't object.
I decided to go the other direction; I've changed all the mentions to just say "Bronze Age", and added a footnote to the first mention giving the dates of the Bronze Age in Britain. I feel that's the most concise way to do it. The sources generally just say "Bronze Age" since they assume readers know about the variation in dates, so this way I can follow the source style without needing to mention the variation of the dating in other areas. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several Sources are missing available identifiers. Eg, Alcroft (1916) (ISSN 0143-8204).
    I added OCLC and ISSN numbers in some cases, but not where there is already an ISBN or DOI; do you feel they're necessary in those cases? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. If there is an identifier available I like to see it, but one per source seems sufficient.

Nice! Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Interesting topic. Will start my review shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am acutely aware I know nothing about such things, so my review is largely about comprehensibility and prose, and I may ask some odd questions
Lead
  • I'm left wondering what "At least two ditches touch the outermost circuit from the outside" means. Perhaps break it down a bit and mention that they run at tangents from the outer circuit?
    I removed the word "tangent" from the lead per an earlier review, but I think it's not the word that's the problem, it's just a hard thing to describe. I've reworded the lead to avoid mentioning their position altogether; I think it would be distracting to make this clear enough in the lead, and it's covered in the body. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link football pitch, very much a UK thing
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • would it be accurate to say "a Bronze Age ditch was discovered, and the construction was paused to allow an excavation, run by Miles Russell."?
    I'd rather not phrase it exactly that way since at the time it was discovered nobody knew what it was, and Russell most likely expected it to be part of the Neolithic site. He suggested it may have been a Bronze Age recut of an originally Neolithic part of the site, but again I think that's too much detail for the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we go with an alternative though? It is still not great, could we just drop the Bronze Age bit because it is too complex for the lead to explain Russell's conclusions? You have already established that some of the contents of one of the external ditches was radiocarbon dated to the Bronze Age, and that was the ditch Russell excavated, but I agree there is no real need to go into that in the lead. How about "In 1991, during the construction of a housing development near the site, one of the ditches outside the outermost circuit was uncovered (or "located"), and the construction was paused to allow an excavation, run by Miles Russell." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like that wording; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radiocarbon dating is duplicate linked
    Removed, along with a couple of other duplicates -- I'd forgotten to run the dupchecker script. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Body
  • The Description section would benefit from the insertion of the year (and month if available) it was "discovered" early on in the section
    If you mean when the site was discovered, there's not a date for that. It's been close to human settlement for literally millennia. I would imagine that by a few hundred years ago it was thought to be the remains of a Roman camp; that was a common description for Neolithic sites, since antiquarians knew nothing of the Neolithic and often adhered to Biblical dating. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really mean "described" in an modern archeological sense. When was the first report or paper describing the camp published? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, misunderstood you. Sygrave helpfully specifies that Skinner was the first, so I've reworded to say so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • it would helpful to the reader to know how long each ditch is, or at least the diameter of the outside ditch, also indicate in what order you are numbering the ditches (inside to outside?)
The dimensions of the site are provided here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Very helpful; I hadn't found that. Done. And the numbering is addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • R.P. Ross Williamson in the lead and Ross Williamson in the body? Also after introduction, just use Williamson thereafter
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest R. P. Ross Williamson at first mention in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once introduced in the body, just go with Curwen thereafter
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is Jon Sygrave's expertise?
    He's an archaeologist; added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Miles Russell at first mention in the body, and say what his expertise is, then use just "Russell" thereafter
    Linked. He's an archaeologist, and the first mention of him is to say that he is running an excavation; do you feel it's necessary to give his profession at that point? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought he might be an anthropologist, but if you think it is clear enough, fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • are Whitehawk style and Ebbsfleet ware notable?
    For a redlink? I don't think so; I'm not knowledgeable about Neolithic pottery but I did have a quick look and couldn't find enough to justify a redlink. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Mesolithic (is there a better target for British Mesolithic?)
    I went with Prehistoric Britain#Mesolithic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Stitching awl is that is what is meant
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the sentence beginning "The camp is one of only..." would be better located in the Description section? In fact the last two paras of the Interpretation of other finds from the Neolithic site probably belong there, as they really aren't about interpretation
    Three separate reviewers complaining about this tells me I need to fix it. I went with a suggestion of Vanamonde's, below; they're now in a separate section, at the end. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • when did it become a scheduled monument? Or should it be "scheduled ancient monument"?
    1923; this is mentioned in the lead and body both. I used the wording Dudley Miles suggested, above; he's written more about this sort of thing than I have. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to Dudley's greater knowledge, but we currently have "Scheduled monument" in the infobox and "scheduled monument" (in 1923) in the lead, but "scheduled ancient monument" at fn 46, then "scheduled monument" at fn 98. I think it should just be consistent throughout. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made it "scheduled monument" in all cases. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link football pitch
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "the inner and second ditch"→"first and second ditches" (as you will have numbered them earlier)
    This edit is my attempt to address this. I've made it clear at first mention of numbering that it starts in the middle, and changed a couple of other wordings to suit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • several duplicate links, Brighton Racecourse, Windmill Hill, Avebury, Trundle (hill fort)
    I think I got them all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Section (archaeology)
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Peterborough ware
    Already linked, I think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Archaeology South-East
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • could you add a brief sentence fragment about what the gathering Time project was?
    I reworded; you're not the only reviewer to comment on this, so I guess it was unclear. I see the way I had it said the radiocarbon reanalysis project was performed by Gathering Time, as if the project was only one thing Gathering Time did; in fact Gathering Time is the name of the book in which the results of the academic project were published, so it's a convenient shorthand for the project. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • radiocabon
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • you could add author-links for the authors like Russell who have articles
    Missed this one; now done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I could find to quibble about. Great job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PM, I think I've now addressed all your points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff, excellent job on this Mike. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

Everything at FAC seems to be outside my niche these days, so might as well try my hand at this. I know next to nothing about this topic, so I'm mostly reviewing for prose. Feel free to revert my copy-edits. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does "football" need a link in the lead, given the, er, divergent uses of the term?
    Can't hurt; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the date on which it received monument status warrant mention in the lead? Without that, the date is only given far down in the body, after the first two allusions to this status.
    Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The earlier sites were mostly found on chalk uplands" This could be read to mean they date to an earlier time, and I don't think that's the intention?
    Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an archaeology editor, and am unfamiliar with the conventions, but the last three sentences of "site and interpretation" seem to change the topic quite abruptly.
    You're not wrong. These sentences predate my involvement with the article, and I've struggled to figure out the best place to put them. I think they're only marginally notable, though the sentence about the reconstructed face does seem worth keeping. Would it solve things to eliminate the "first scheduled monument in Sussex" sentence and the one about the film installation? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Honesty I think all of it is worth keeping...you could make a very short section at the end, something like "protection and presentation", and collect these sentences and others about legal protection there? I don't feel too strongly about it, but would prefer a section to where they currently are, and would prefer keeping them to removing them. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an excellent solution. I made it "Preservation and presentation" and moved it to the end. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks great, thank you. Also provides a locus for any new information on the topic, should it be found. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eventually the site became legally protected" could we say when?
    The sources are not exactly clear about this. Piecing things together, it appears that the 1923 designation as a scheduled monument should have provided legal protection, but this does not appear to have been enforced; Sygrave says in his review something to the effect that the designation didn't prevent development continuing, and Williamson's 1930 paper refers to the site's designation under the Ancient Monuments Act as "a measure which draws attention to the desirability of a protection which it is itself unable to give". By the second excavation it seems the bureaucracy started to work and permission was needed. This is not explicit in the sources, so I don't think there's much that can be added, but how about if I make it "the designation did not yet provide the site with legal protection against development" in the 1929 section? That sidesteps the question of whether the act should have provided protection, because there's no question that practically it did not at that time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that would help with the flow, I think. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " a now-superseded classification that attempted to identify individual cultures within the Neolithic which has since been overturned" slightly redundant, it seems to me..
    Deleted "now-superseded". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you link "awl"? there's a few options which is why I haven't done it myself.
    I linked to stitching awl which is the most likely. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can "pulling-up ground" be linked or explained?
    See the explanation I gave Gog, above; unfortunately that's not in the sources. However, since you're the second person to ask, I searched again, and have found a source I can use to define "pulling up" in a footnote, which I hope is enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it's one of those things everyone is supposed to know...Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know our conventions around this are sometimes odd, but 'drawn by the Rev. Skinner in 1821" seems to me an unnecessary honorific, as elsewhere where he's mentioned; and even at the first use, I'd prefer something like "John Skinner, vicar of [place]"...
    The sources all use "Rev.", I think; I haven't checked them all. But I think it's fine to remove it and have done so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps link "Roman occupation"?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gathering Time project could use a brief explanation, I think.
    The first sentence of that paragraph was intended to be that explanation -- is there something that you think it would help to add? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm left wondering where the project is coming from; is it a non-profit, a university, a corporation, an undergraduate actitivities group? You have explained what they do, but not who they are...Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I reworded a bit in response to a similar comment from Peacemaker67, above. I can't find a third-party description of it to use as a source, so I'm stuck with what the book says about itself. The acknowledgements section starts by saying "This project owes its execution and completion to its cofunders, the Arts and Humanities Research Council and English Heritage." So it's a project, and a book. I would guess that it evolved from an idea by the editors, Whittle, Healy, and Bayliss; they probably got a grant and a book contract and away they went. Is there more that could be said here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case there's probably not much to be done; you could possibly omit the name entirely, and just refer to it as a 2011 study, titling the section the same way as the others; that way there's fewer questions popping up in a reader's mind. That's a suggestion only, though, I don't have a strong opinion. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason "RCHME" is abbreviated?
    Just that it's that way in the sources; I had to dig a bit to find what it stood for, in fact. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A possibly obvious question that may not have an answer; why was the entire site not investigated when the first big digs occurred?
    Resources, I'm sure, though there's no statement to that effect. The excavation was done by the local archaeology club, which might actually have been fairly well-funded, but a big dig costs a lot of money and labour. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, why was the site not given legal protection earlier?
    See my comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me; my comments are essentially all prose nitpicks, but this was a very easy read. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I think I've responded to everything above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and a few responses for you to consider above. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

A brilliant topic! I've really enjoyed reading through Midnightblueowl's articles on similar topics. (Note to directors: I am taking part in the WikiCup.)

  • I'd recommend against the comma in the first sentence.
    Removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • First sentence: "Whitehawk Camp is the remains of a causewayed enclosure". Lead image caption: "Remains of Whitehawk Camp". Remains of remains?
    Fair comment. I made the caption "Part of Whitehawk Camp...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a bit of a bugbear (as it is for most philosophers) but you use "imply" a lot when, strictly speaking, you mean something like "suggest". I won't insist on anything, though.
    I think non-philosophical usage allows this; Chambers (my goto for British English) gives "suggest" as the first meaning of imply, in fact. I'd like to leave these as they are if you're OK with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the plain bowl or decorated bowl types; these are the earliest form of Neolithic pottery" Forms plural, surely?
    Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The high volume of pottery found of this type" I wonder whether "The high volume of pottery of this type found" might be clearer.
    Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the final two paragraphs in the "interpretation" section really belong there?
    Moved to a new section at the end; both the previous reviewers complained about this too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping there for now -- dinner in the oven... Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Repetition of "site" in the first para of the 1929 section
    Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Whitehawk camp excavation plan 1929 and 1932-1933.png This image page is a bit all over the place. If it's PD, it does not need the non-free use rationale, and there needs to be a clear explanation of what makes it PD. If it's non-free, it needs a non-free copyright tag, and it should not have the PD tag. However, if it's non-free, I am going to have object. If this is there as a map of the site, it fails NFCC#1, as we could create (and indeed have) a free plan of the site. (It also possibly fails NFCC#2, but let's not get in to that.) If it's there to show Curwen's map, it does not fail NFCC#1, but it does, I think, fail NFCC#8. (If the image is PD in the UK but not in the United States, then it counts as non-free for our purposes, I believe.)
  • Ditto File:Whitehawk camp excavations 1929 and 1935.jpg.
    Re both the above: the creator of both images died in 1938, so they're PD in the UK. They are not PD in the US. I am even worse at image policy than I thought; Nikki patiently helped me with these above, but perhaps I didn't get all the way to the end of the maze. So I would need a FUR to use each of these. The reason to let the reader see them is to get an understanding of the complicated layout of both the site and the excavated area. I was under the impression that tracing a copyrighted map does not produce a free copy, so I don't think it's the case that a free copy that gives the reader the same understanding can be created. If we don't think it's important for the reader to understand reasonably accurately the layout of the ditches and digs, then yes, these have to go, as far as I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right that tracing a map would not produce a free copy. But you could surely produce your own map, or you could request one at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop (I note that "Technical maps (archaeology, city closeups, etc.)" is something explicitly mentioned on that page as an example of what the Wikipedians there do). In any case, if these images are non-free, I think they're going to have to go. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed them. I'm not sure what could be done that would be accurate enough to be useful without something equivalent to tracing -- what are you thinking the graphics workshop could do? A freehand copy? I'd be unwilling to use a freehand copy in the article unless I was confident it would not mislead the reader, and I can't imagine that any artist could manage an closely accurate copy purely by eye. Still, if you think there's not enough justification then they need to go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I've not looked at the other images.)
  • Lots of proper nouns in the later sections (e.g., para 2 of the 1991–2010 section). Any worth redlinks?
    One now bluelinked, thanks to Peacemaker67; I don't think any of the others qualify. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please double-check my edits. I'm a bit worried about the image situation. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All replied to bar one, re pottery; I want to read a couple of things before I reply to that one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, all done now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; pleased to see the non-free images gone. I'll get back to you soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, just checking in to see if you have further comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support. I don't think I would have structured the article like this, but 1) I can't say precisely how I would have formatted it and 2) That's not really the point of review anyway. Great job -- I really enjoyed reading about this! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM[edit]

  • Image captions, check fragments don't have full stops.
    Done; the only one I saw was in the infobox. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were The Trundle" ->" were the Trundle".
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following terms are inaccessible to a non-expert reader:
    • sally port
    • saddle
    • round barrow
    • long barrow
    • sherds
    • Beaker
    • RCHME
    • Electrical resistance survey
    • Bayesian analysis
      All of these are linked, but I can see that some of them might benefit from either a footnote in the text or even a parenthetical explanation. I don't want to clog up the text with too many parentheses, though -- the links are intended to help out users in just this way. I'd suggest that RCHME and Beaker don't need more than the existing link, since the former is just an acronym and there's some additional context for the mention of Beaker ware in the article already. I also think "sally port", which is a military term rather than an archaeological one, is a definition that a reader will be able to get very quickly from the link, and "sherd" seems possible to deduce from the context of its first use. I propose to add parenthetical notes for "resistivity survey" and "Bayesian analysis", and footnotes for the barrows and "saddle". Is that enough, do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the links are okay as they stand, but being objective and applying a (new) common standard across FACs, I'm looking at terms that I personally clicked on to understand. I may not represent the "average reader" as I have post-graduate degrees but it looks like nowadays all such things must be explained in the article one way or another. It may be that the general reader needs even more explanation, or perhaps I know less than the general reader about this topic, but those are the ones I had to click on to fully understand. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!)
      OK. I'll add a couple of explanations per my note above. I'd be interested to hear from other reviewers what they feel needs further explanation within the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      TRM, I was about to start on these, but I realized I don't know what you mean by "(new) common standard"; has something changed in the MoS? Or is there some other guideline page that has changed that you're referring to? Is this something I should be familiar with as a reviewer? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      MOS:LINKSTYLE bullets 9 through 11. In the past it never seemed to be a problem to link plain English terms, but now it is insufficient and is being enforced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Added footnote for both types of barrow. Still looking at the others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Added footnote for resistivity survey. I think those are the most important ones; I'm going to hold off on the others till we get some more responses at the WT:FAC discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, no problem. The major issue here is the purely subjective nature of what does and what does not need to be further explained within the article itself. I'm just looking for a level playing field. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      A level playing field does seem like a reasonable request. Having looked at them all again, I think, unless you feel strongly about it, that the three ones I've addressed are all that need it -- I think the others are inferable from context, as much as is needed for comprehending the sentences they're in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 29 should be pp.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM, do you have any further comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look in the next few days. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TRM Have you had a chance to revisit this? Ealdgyth (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from mujinga[edit]

I already gave commments on a previous version, I'm really impressed to see the state of the article now! Just gave it a read through and only have a couple of comments:

  • references 62 and 63 are currently inside a bracket, should they be outside it?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stone Age Quest is mentioned in the article so does it need an external link (not really fussed either way)
    I think you missed it? There's a link at the very end of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant it the other way round! If it's mentioned in the article should it have an external link? Mujinga (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean -- I think it's OK. If we had an article on the game (unlikely) I'd say link to that and remove the external link, but as it is I think it's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fine by me Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yeah i think that's prob best. further, now I'm looking at map images in Sygrave (November 2016) maybe the original image is showing the small part that points north in figures 19 and 20 Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is little more than a track" this is true on the camp side of the hill, but on the other side of the hill Whitehawk Hill Road still exists
    I cut the phrase, as I don't think I can source anything more specific; does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
sure, that works Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Sources, the Sygrave report (A Report on the Outcomes of the Whitehawk Community Archaeology Project, Including a Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design (Report)) has report twice and should it be enclosed in apostrophes?
    The format comes from the {{cite report}} template, so I'm hesitant to change it -- I usually assume those templates comply with whatever the consensus format is supposed to be. The "(Report)" is generated by the template too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i was wondering if it was a template issue, seems like it would be a common "bug" to have report twice but i don't see a way to stop it appearing in the template info. Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • note4 says "The road is named Manor Hill; it was built to connect a housing estate to Freshfield Road nearby" - I'm not seeing something to back that in pages 9-11 of Sygrave (November 2016). Page 17 of the same source says "Manor Hill linked Freshfield Road with the new residential developments on the south eastern flank of Whitehawk Hill and Whitehawk Bottom." The new estates would have been Whitehawk and Manor Farm
    On page 11, section 2.2.7, Sygrave says "In 1934 a proposal was put forward to construct a new road to connect the newly built Manor Farm estate with Freshfield Road". I think that's enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ah! just what i was looking for and did not see, thanks for the answer Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The camp is one of only twelve known examples of a causewayed enclosure from the Windmill Hill culture in Britain and one of three known to have existed in the South Downs. It predates Avebury and Stonehenge by up to 1000 years.[98] The camp was the first scheduled monument in Sussex.[98]" - These claims (one of 12, three in south downs, first monument in sussex) might be true but aren't backed by the current source (I think this is an older part of the page). " predates Avebury and Stonehenge by up to 1000 years" feels a bit close to "predate later stone age enclosures like Stonehenge and Avebury by up to 1000 years" Mujinga (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I went back through the history, and the first sentence was in the very first version of the article, unsourced. I've cut it, along with the Stonehenge/Avebury sentence; the dates are given in the article and just because everyone knows about Stonehenge and Avebury I don't think it's necessary to compare every early archaeological site to them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ah, it was so close to making it to the frontpage :) Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing "comments" to "support". Great work on this article Mike Christie, I look forward to seeing it on the mainpage. As a last thing, I enjoyed reading about the "chalk artefact with regular grooves". Imagine if Curwen was right and the ancient denizens of the hill were chess-playing cannibals! Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Yes, every time I look at that I wonder what on earth it was for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:12, 12 January 2021 (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/Whitehawk_Camp/archive1&oldid=1006350536"