Talk:Falkner's Circle

Falkner's Circle has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 22, 2019. (Reviewed version).

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiltshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wiltshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wiltshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WiltshireWikipedia:WikiProject WiltshireTemplate:WikiProject WiltshireWiltshire
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Falkner's Circle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 09:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoy these articles, so happy to review this one. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Langdean Bottom" - as we don't have a wikilink for this one, could I suggest that you specify a nearby village or something?

The Langdean Bottom stones aren't actually in a village specifically, but in farmland. The nearest village would be West Overton, so I'll add a reference to that settlement at this juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the two Avenues connected to it" You've only mentioned one so far, I think? Could you specify these?

The other is the Beckhampton Avenue. I've added a mention of it and a Wikilink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the Sanctuary or The Sanctuary?

In this context, perhaps we should go with the lower-case "the". I know that there is some policy stating that band names like "the Beatles" should use a lower-case "the" at Wikipedia, so that probably applied here as well. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are "West Kennet palisades"?

I think that this is the same thing as the West Kennet Avenue. I'll switch "palisades" here to "Avenue" to avoid confusion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean shard rather than sherd?

No, sherd is the correct archaeological term for a small piece of broken pottery; I think that shard only refers to broken glass (and the big tower in central London, of course). I'll Wikilink "sherd". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does "flecking" mean? Is that archaeological jargon?

I don't think it's archaeological jargon per se, as I've heard it used in reference to painting as well. I could add a link to the Wikidictionary page here? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Smith related coming upon the site in the late 1870s, he began to investigate with Long's assistance." Comma splice? Either way, this isn't really a well-formed sentence.

You're right; that doesn't work at all. I've added "after which" to make the sentence function. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Long source definitely called Abury, and not Avebury?

Yes, it's definitely "Abury". As far as I understand it, that was how the place-name was commonly spelled for quite a long time. It seems to have become "Avebury" by the early 20th century, although I'm not quite sure when the change was made (or why). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you fill out the references in the further reading section? Or, better still incorporate them as references?

I've partially filled out these references; I've not yet been able to determine the precise chapter title that is being cited in the Victoria County History volume, nor its specific author. Unfortunately I don't think either of these books are available online, at least not yet, so until I can see a hard copy I won't be able to draw upon them for this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a category for its status as a scheduled monument?

Yes we could! Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The final line of the article suggests that there's potentially a questionmark over its status as a stone circle - is that a fair reading? If so, I wonder whether we might be wrong to present it unproblematically as a stone circle?

Difficult one. No one seems to be explicitly stating that they don't think it was a stone circle, so I think it would perhaps be unnecessary to make changes in this area. If, however, a serious argument appears in future that puts forward the proposal that it was not a stone circle then we would definitely need to reflect that ambiguity. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some copyediting; please double-check. I'll want to have another look through, I think, but I can't see this not being promoted in due course... Josh Milburn (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, Josh, your time and attention is much appreciated! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]