Talk:Smythe's Megalith

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review, but I may be a little slow! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• "a sub-rectangular earthen tumulus" This strikes me as a little jargony.

• This is true. I used it here because I used it in Coldrum Long Barrow. However, I'm not sure if there is a better term than "sub-rectangular"; do "roughly rectangular" or "somewhat rectangular" work, or just look messy? As for "earthen"; perhaps just "earth"? I don't think "soil" would cut it. And then we come to tumulus. I mostly used that because our Wikipedia article is titled "Tumulus" but frankly I don't at all mind switching to "mound" if you think that that would improve things. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would be happy with a "roughly rectangular earthen tumulus" - I think wikilinks make jargon a lot less problematic! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Sure thing. I'll make the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Can I recommend against "Maloideae", as it's no longer a recognised grouping?

• The RS refers to "Maloideae" so I followed that example, but it looks like it dates from before the botanical reclassification. If I understand our article on the subject correctly, the presently appropriate term would be

• Happy with the change. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• No harm in using feet measurement (though it's surely a little old-fashioned!), but could I recommend using {{convert}} to provide metric measurements? Relatedly, perhaps you should be consistent in using metric or imperial primarily?

• I could have sworn that I'd already converted them into metric and added that information... Ah well, silly me. I've done it now. I've made sure that metric is always listed first; imperial after in brackets. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• That's great, but can I recommend using the "sigfig" parameter? It looks like we have some false precision... Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• I get your point about false precision, but I'm not sure that there's a way of using the "sigfig" without resulting in an imperial first, them metric presentation, whereas ideally I'd rather go with metric first (it being the international standard and all.) Is there a way of getting around this? I've never used this system before so am a little unfamiliar with it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Hi @J Milburn and Josh: - just pinging you to see if you had any thought on this issue? No rush. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• You currently have "2.29 metres (7 feet 6 inches)", for example, which I'm guessing is from a source that specifies only the imperial. If you use {{convert|7|ft|6|in|m|sigfig=2|order=flip}}, you get 2.3 metres (7 ft 6 in), which is I think what you're after. Basically, order=flip can do what you need. A little clunky, but it does the job! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Or, of course, you could just do the rounding manually! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, Josh. It wasn't the rounding I had an issue with, it was the order flipping, so I appreciate you clarifying that one for me. I'll endeavour to get that done in the next few days and shall alert you to when I do. In the meantime, have a good weekend! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Done! That's a nifty piece of techno, I'll make use of it in other articles on the subject in due course. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think there may still be a little false precision, but you've done what I've asked, so I've no business complaining! I'll go ahead and promote now. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• "4110-3820 and 3780-3530 calibrated BCE" What does calibrated mean here?

• It's part of the jargon used when referring to carbon dating. As I understand it—and I could be incorrect here—it refers to the application of the actual information obtained with the dating system with the known chronology of time. I'm not really sure how this could be conveyed in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Ok, no problem. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Your dash spacing seems to be inconsistent.

• Well spotted. I've standardised it throughout the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• I wonder if "subsequent history" should be renamed to something indicating that it's about medieval events specifically? (Thinking aloud now) maybe we could have a "History" section with subsections for design, bodies, medieval, discovery, and reporting?

• I've renamed it "Medieval history" but I'm certainly open to other possibilities. I've not sure about putting all the other sections under a "History" sub-section. I tried to follow the structure of the Coldrum Long Barrow article, although that it of course much larger. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• "on which the human remains had been placed" This is disputed, according to the discussion earlier in the article. On which human remains were found, perhaps?

• Yes, you're right, "found" would work much better here. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• You introduce Charles twice; was he present or not?

• The two RS seem to differ on this; one mentions him being present, the other does not. However, I'll defer to Ashbee, who seems to be the main authority here. I've removed the second introduction, accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• I wondered whether there might be a category for this as a destroyed site; Category:Demolished buildings and structures in England and Category:Destroyed landmarks in the United Kingdom came up, but there may be something better.

• I'll certainly add those two categories, although I won't remove any either, if that's okay. I think that the present categories are useful for individuals who might be exploring this subject. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Other than that, this looks great, but please double-check my edits! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Once again, many thanks for your time and attention, Josh. Hope that you enjoyed reading it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, @J Milburn:! That should be everything, unless you had any other points that you think I should look into. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

BC or BCE

At the invitation to open a discussion as to why change (from BCE) per one of the edit summaries - here it is. Not many people in the UK are familiar with BCE, so that in itself is a good enough reason to change. Silas Stoat (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

See MOS:BCE. For good or ill, this article has used the (increasingly common) BCE/CE system and should not be changed without a Talk Page consensus. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

And that is the purpose of this discussion. I've stated my reason above, now if we get a consensus to change then we can do so. Silas Stoat (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Just pulling from the BCE article, "In 2002, England and Wales introduced the BCE/CE notation system into the official school curriculum." Also either way, I feel like that's probably not enough reason to change it. BCE/CE are pretty self explanatory even if you don't immediately recognize them. Norvianii (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It might be worth a link to the BCE article from the first appearance beneath the lead though. Unless the MOS says not to.

Fantastic article btw. Great job done here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The article does indeed make that assertion, backed by a reference. However, it seems like the idea maybe didn't take off. See this [1] and look at any of the example examination papers. I didn't check them all, but the ones I did check were all using BC/AD. Incidentally, the Evening Standard article used as a source has some excellent comments, many of which neatly summarise reasons for not adopting this PC notation. Silas Stoat (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments such as "if it weren't a rule then the whole regiment of antichrist would not work. If you do not believe in the end times, you better now, beacuse the end times are comming. If you don't believe in the antichrist then you will be doomed. - God bless you!"? Now I appreciate I'm picking out a particularly bizarre example here, but it nicely underscores my point that we probably shouldn't be basing our decisions (in whole or part) on the online comments of a web article from a decade ago. More broadly, I would take this opportunity to defend the BCE/CE terminology: it's been in use for centuries; its the norm in many scholarly fields; its very popular in areas of the world where Christianity is not and has never been dominant; it doesn't entail making theological assumptions about the divinity of Jesus; and it is growing in usage all the time. Chances are, in a century or two it will only be historians who will know what "BC" and "AD" even mean. As far as I can tell, the only reasons people raise for retaining the Christian system are that a) Christian norms should be upheld throughout society because Christianity is the one, true religion and deserves global promotion, and b) changing BC/AD for BCE/CE represents some form of nefarious or sinister "political correctness" imposed on the unwilling majority by lefty do-gooders and for that reason alone must be resisted. To my mind, those aren't really compelling arguments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)