Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Combe Hill/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) 29 April 2022 [1].

Combe Hill[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Neolithic causewayed enclosure in Sussex, not far from The Trundle and Whitehawk Camp, both now FAs. The site has been excavated twice, and is a scheduled monument. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review–pass no licensing issues found. I noticed a couple issues with refs though: 1) Oswald 2018 is not cited 2) why is Sheridan formatted differently than other journal sources? (t · c) buidhe 21:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; both fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

Looks interesting; will review soon. Hog Farm Talk 19:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Causewayed enclosures were built in England from shortly before 3700 BC until about 3300 BC" - the article body implies they were only built for about 200 years after 3700 BC, and that the 3300 BC figure is use, not building?
    Yes, though the sources are not as precise about this as I would like. I have changed the lead to match the body, since I think the date of building is more interesting for the lead; the body gives the "continued to be used" dates. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The exact scheduled monument date of 9 October doesn't seem to be cited?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "included it in a list of certain and probable causewayed enclosures" - while I can see how the description of Curwen's work in the body could mean this, I would think that maybe a description more similar to what is in the body would be better
    Reworded per your suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beaker pottery needs linked or glossed, unless you're referring to actual pottery beakers
    Linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have been an area where flints cores were prepared" - is the plural of "flints" intentional here?
    No, just a typo. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images/sources look

Very interesting, anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 03:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RN - comment support

I'm slowly going through the article (a reflection of my time, not the quality of the article!). My first impressions are that this is a well-written and well-researched article. I'll aim to leave full comments this week, but the ones I've noted down so far are minor. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I look forward to your comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My initial impression was correct, it's a very fine article. It is well written and very well research, using an excellent range of sources. With articles like this there needs to be a balance between giving an overview of the sources and avoiding going into too much detail, and the article navigates that challenge very well. The comments below are very minor.
Background
  • The construction of an enclosure took only a short time, which implies significant organization since substantial labour would have been required, for clearing the land, preparing trees for use as posts or palisades, and digging the ditches. It might be worth making it clear that this is a generalisation, rather than specific to Combe Hill
    I made it "The construction of these enclosures" -- is that enough to make the point clear? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over seventy causewayed enclosures are known in the British Isles It might be worth changing ‘are known’ to ‘have been identified’ to avoid repetition of ‘known’ which is used in the next sentence.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Site
  • With the Allcroft plan, I would add to the caption that it does not include part of the outer circuit to the east.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment, the more detailed plan comes later in the article. I think it would be worth moving it into the ‘site’ section, where the Allcroft plan currently is. The 1908 plan could go in the ‘Archaeological investigations’ section.
    Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth saying how many causeways there are at the site?
    I think not -- most are only known from bosing ("early geophys", as an archaeologist friend of mine called it when I told him about it!) -- and have not been confirmed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A secondary circuit is referred to, but it’s not clear which one this is.
    Clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When discussing the radiocarbon date, it might be helpful to clarify from which part of the site it was taken – if possible, I appreciate that since it was done more than 40 years after the fact, establishing exact provenance might not be possible, but it sounds like it came from the southern ditch.
    A combination of Musson's description of his finds plus Drewett's comments make it clear where it came from, and you're correct, it was the southern ditch. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There a bank associated with the outer ditch, and that is indicated on the more detailed plan, but it’s not stated in the text. As the bank is mentioned in relation to the inner circuit, I think it would be useful to mention it for the outer circuit.
    Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related to the above, what do you think about specifying in the text that the bank was on the inner-side of the ditches? I’m not especially fussed since it’s clear from the more detailed plan.
    I think it's OK as is, since the plan is right there next to the text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Archaeological investigations
  • The explanation of why Allcroft’s plan didn’t include the gaps in the banks is very interesting.
    I agree! I wrote the article on Knap Hill, and it was around the time Allcroft published Earthwork of England that Maud Cunnington was excavating that site and posting the first note about causeways. He was just a year or two too early to hear about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions Veronica Keiller in a footnote. The Heritage Gateway says that she was the first to identify the enclosure as possibly neolithic, so I would add that detail and move the content of the footnote into the main body of the text.
    I'm not sure about this. That page cites (5,6) for the fact the she was the first to spot it, but (5) appears to be missing from the list and (6) is Curwen's 1930 paper, which only says she told him about it, not that she identified it. Unless you feel I really should add it, I'd prefer to email the site via the link given (which goes to the East Sussex County Archaeologist) and ask them what source (5) is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, it would be best to leave the text as it is and see if County Archaeologist can shed light on the matter. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When talking about Musson’s identification of a hearth, it’s not entirely clear why signs of burning might bring this into question. The point about the ditch being recut should probably be a separate sentence, as at the moment it reads a bit like the putative hearth was in the ditch.
    In fact it was in the ditch. You can read Musson's paper here; he says "a section of the trench is shown.... It will be noticed that a hearth is shown because at that level two flat pieces of tabular flint set close together were found with a small heap of bones close to and the broken piece of quern stone a little farther away. There was charcoal around and underneath the flat slabs, though not in great quantity..." (p. 108) If you look at the section (p. 107) you'll see it's well down in the excavated ditch. Gathering Time says "...a 'hearth', so called because it contained two slabs of tabular flint set side-by-side. There is, however, no mention of burning in situ and the abrupt sides of the feature suggest that it may have been a recut". I think Musson post-dates the era in which it was thought the builders of these camps lived in the ditches, so I don't know what he thought was going on. I've added "in the ditch" to the description; do you think more is needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that covers it. I was a bit surprised that someone thought there might be a hearth in a ditch, but at least it would have offered some shelter. In any case, it's sorted. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • which Drewett dates to the Romano-British period Does Drewett explain how the dating was reached? In a nutshell, I’m looking for a the sentence to finish based on…[pottery/datable organic material/local context and stratigraphy/something else
    Pottery; added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a geophysical survey in 2003 which would be worth mentioning, especially as it identified possible postholes (and therefore structures) in the interior. There is a very brief summary in Heritage Gateway, which is probably all the detail we can manage since it’s a grey literature report.
    Added. I don't know why I didn't find this page when writing the article; thanks for the link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the subject of postholes, since they’re already mentioned a couple of times it might be useful to explain for the reader why they are significant (ie: they indicate there were structures of some form which no longer survive above ground).
    I am inclined not to go into this much detail -- the problem is that if you do this for one article you should do it for all of them, and it's not that hard to figure out. There's now a link to posthole (which you added, I think) and the new discussion of the 2003 survey makes it pretty clear what post-holes can mean. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems fair to me, the info is at readers' fingertips via a wikilink. Richard Nevell (talk)}
Sources
  • For consistency with the other sources, perhaps include Maud Cunnington’s first name rather than initials
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard: all points replied to now; thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, and thank you for bringing this article to my attention! Richard Nevell (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, I was about to email the County Archaeologist and realized I'd misread the citation -- it's to a 1929 note in SAC that I hadn't seen, which unambiguously credits Veronica Keiller as the first to point out the causeways. I've now put that in the main text and deleted the note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I did my best to find something to complain about, but failed. I find —ize endings look a bit quaint in a modern BrE article, but who am I argue with the OED, the last bastion of —izes in England? (Mind you, even the OED prefers "analyse" to "analyze", but let that pass.) If were writing it, I might put Gathering Time in inverted commas, but I'm not. I wondered why we needed to know that Curwen was informed of the site by Veronica Keiller, but it's only a footnote and doesn't get in the way. The article is widely referenced, from a range of sources – some old, most new – and the references and sources seem admirably set out. The text is a pleasure to read, the article appears to be comprehensive and seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Happy to support its elevation. – Tim riley talk 11:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim. The "-ize" endings are probably a result of my corrupted mid-Atlantic English; I've been on the left side of the pond for over thirty years now. I hesitated over the footnote about Veronica Keiller, but finally decided to add it because it's a hint to the social nature of archaeology in those days -- Curwen and Alexander Keiller were both gentlemen amateurs, as many archaeologists were, and given that the article notes that Allcroft included the site in his well-known survey, Earthwork of England, in 1908, I think it's interesting that Curwen didn't find out about it from Allcroft, but from Keiller's wife. That thought process is too much OR to include explicitly, of course. Let me know if you think that's too tenuous to be worth including. Re Gathering Time: I've been undecided how to present this in the articles I've cited it in; if I use quotes, do you think I would need to include the quotes in all mentions of it, including the section header? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
–ize -v- –ise: as both are correct in BrE it is entirely a personal choice which to use, and I am not going to carp at your choice (beyond the gentle dig, above). The footnote about Mrs Keiller does no harm and doesn't get in the way, so I can't see any reason to object to it. As to putting inverted commas round Gathering Time, if you're happy with it as it is, without quotes, I'm not quibbling. If you did feel moved to change, I suppose consistency from article to article would be a good thing, but it wouldn't be obligatory, I'm sure. Tim riley talk 13:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Optional: "Musson also found a large quantity of Ebbsfleet ware in one of the ditches." → 'Musson also found a large quantity of Ebbsfleet ware pottery in one of the ditches.'
    Yes, better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Drewett suggested that three polished axes ..." Full name at first mention.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would have been visible from as a treeless notch". Something missing after "from"?
    Fixed: "would have been visible from the north as a treeless notch". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Link scheduled monument.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once the ditch had silted in". Is that right? Not 'silted up'?
    I had to think about this. Looking in Google Scholar convinced me that the phrase does get used in archaeological texts; it's a paraphrase from the source which just says "silted". To my ear, "silted up" implies filling, whereas with an excavation I think what's of interest is the various layers of earth, and a silted layer can look quite different from a deliberate infill with chalk rubble. So I'd like to keep this unless you think it's jarring to someone unfamiliar with the usage. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Easy and informative reading. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from mujinga[edit]

  • Thanks for the interesting read, I think I must have walked past this site at least once without really realising it was a causewayed enclosure. Comparing this article to the one on Whitehawk Camp it seems pretty decent, but also gives me cause for a few comments:
  • The two articles share some text, is there an acknowledgement somewhere in the article history to mark the edits for copyright acknowledgement?
    Yes, this edit credits Barkhale Camp as the source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, that's what I was looking for! Mujinga (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whitehawk Camp begins "Whitehawk Camp is the remains of a causewayed enclosure", this one begins "Combe Hill is a causewayed enclosure" - what's the difference?
    Nothing intentional. I think when I wrote Whitehawk Camp I had read less of the literature; technically it's the remains of an enclosure, but nobody talks about them that way, so I would be more inclined to change Whitehawk Camp than this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whitehawk Camp gives a bit of info about what the site is like nowadays in the lead, ie mostly destroyed. The lead here could do with a sentence or two on that.
    What sort of thing are you thinking of? Whitehawk was damaged by development; really nothing has happened to Combe Hill. Even the Trundle had a beacon, a chapel, and a windmill to mention; there's not even a trig point on Combe Hill. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So I mean a sentence or two to orientate the reader, something like "Combe Hill is a causewayed enclosure, northwest of Eastbourne in East Sussex, on the southern edge of the South Downs. It is composed of an almost complete inner circle of ditch and bank and the remains of an outer circuit. Causewayed enclosures were built in ..." I also changed Jevington to Eastbourne here since that's a bigger place and it reflects what's said in the article text better. Then also on top of that now I'd like to query "on the southern edge of the South Downs" since I would have thought the southern edge would be Beachy Head, facing the sea? If it looks towards the Weald surely it's on the northern edge? Mujinga (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops; glad you caught that; it is indeed on the north edge of the South Downs. I see what you mean about the lead now and have expanded per your suggestion; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks great! I wikilinked Eastbourne Mujinga (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radiocarbon dating is linked on third mention
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should K.D. Thomas be K. D. Thomas ?
    Yes, fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Healy, Frances; Bayliss, Alex; Whittle, Alasdair (2015) [2011]" - why the two dates here? I'm sure there's a reason but it seems strange
    It's a 2015 reprint of the 2011 edition; it's not a new edition so there are no changes. It's the "orig-year" parameter. Is there a way to make this clearer? I could make it "(2015 reprint)" instead of 2015, by not using the citation templates, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Yes, "(2015 reprint)" would be better I think, but it's not a big deal Mujinga (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have Antiquity (331): 262–264. but also Antiquity. 4 (13): 22–54., so the two are not consistent
    I had accidentally omitted the volume for Sheridan's review; now fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you identify Peter Drewett on first mention?
    I made it "Peter Drewett, who reviewed the excavation history in 1994, suggested that" since I think this makes it clear he's an archaeologist. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice Mujinga (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most causewayed enclosure are fairly close to circular in layout, but the inner enclosure at Combe Hill is more elliptical than most" - suggest "The majority of causewayed enclosures" to avoid 2xmost
    I made it "Most causewayed enclosures are fairly close to circular in layout, but the inner enclosure at Combe Hill is somewhat elliptical". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all from me! Mujinga (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the replies, for me I just have one outstanding question (now expanded) about the lead Mujinga (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That question is answered so switching to support. Will be nice to see the article on the frontpage Mujinga (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

Some small, trivial comments

  • File:Coombe Hill - geograph.org.uk - 2709481.jpg is tiny in the ibox; maybe a portrait view, or increase the width of the box?
    Yes, a pity to waste it in the infobox. I decided the box didn't need a picture and put this picture in the background section, and moved the existing one down. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes much better now as that pic is by far the best on commons on showning the whole site. Your going have a problem selecting a crop for main page day however. Have been testing with the crop tool, and not finding any 100 x 100px section that could work satisfactory Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hadrian Allcroft, a historian - The historian Hadrian Allcroft....(which at least gets rid of the comma)
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence of attacks at some sites provided support for the idea that Evidence of attacks on some sites support the idea that
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • that the enclosures were fortified settlements - were built as fortified settlements....
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plan he drew showed no gaps - shows? as it still exists
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a scarp
    Changed to slope; it means a steep slope but I think it's a jargon word so it's gone. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • is the "Later investigations" section too detailed, given that none of them, as yet, amount to much.
    It's really the RCHME report and the Gathering Time report that have no information; the former because it hasn't been released, and the latter because they couldn't do any radiocarbon dating. I'm hesitant to cut these; the RCHME report really exists, and an archaeologist interested in the site could no doubt get hold of it, even though it's unpublished, so I think it should be mentioned. The Gathering Time project is a major radiocarbon project, and a reader of this article who knew about it would definitely expect it to be mentioned -- if we don't mention it it'll seem an omission, even though in this case there's no actual data. So I'd like to keep both. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, its still valuable info, and shows that the site still attracts specialist interest. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise excellently written, sourced and organised. Support Ceoil (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support, and also for the copyedits -- some good tightening that I should have been able to see myself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Z1720 - pass[edit]

Version reviewed

  • I suggest archiving ref 35 and ref 36
  • Ref 36 cites to Historic England, but Heritage Gateway is partly managed by HE, along with two other organizations. This should be changed to "Heritage Gateway"
  • Why are some of the authors in the Sources section wikified, while others are not?
  • In Sources, Patton, Stephen's reference has a ISBN, but it is the only one without dashes. I suggest adding the dashes to standardise the refs.
  • I am confident that these sources are all reliable and high quality sources.
  • I fixed one instance of "pp." used for one page, but the rest are fine.
  • Since this article didn't go through a GA, I did an earwig check. I have no concerns about plagiarism or paraphrasing.
  • Spot checked refs 14, 24, 17, 34, 22

Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I think; I wikilinked every author that has an article -- I've redlinked Curwen in the article but didn't want to add a redlink to the sources. For Patton I changed the ISBN to the epub since I suspect that's what I have -- I was emailed a PDF by another editor so I don't have the ISBN. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed, and I pass the source review. Z1720 (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2022 (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/Combe_Hill/archive1&oldid=1085344094"