Talk:Sweet Track/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC) I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Overall, this looks to be quite a reasonable article and should make GA in due course; however, there are a few minor things that need fixing.

Location -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC) - I'm not sure whether ref 5 (Cunliffe, Barry (2005) is intended to cover the whole of the first paragraph, or not. Unfortunately, it is a book, so just citing it with no page numbers does not provide WP:Verification.[reply]

Page no & URL for Google Books version added.— Rod ^talk 17:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC) - That first sentence needs some clarification and possibly a citation or more. I'm happy to accept the geographical route, i.e. Westhay to Shapwick; but the secondary claim "in typical Somerset rhyne country", I would regard as controversial. Firstly, are you claiming that it was so at the time of construction of the track, if so let's have the proof; secondly, I suspect that rhynes in Somerset are not as old as the track, so you aught to clarify which era you are referring to, as well as providing a cite that it is "typical" (otherwise it is merely a point of view)?[reply]

I've removed the contentious claim.— Rod ^talk 21:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC) - I would suggest that the "This was...." in the final sentence of the first paragraph aught to be "They were ....", i.e. pural form.[reply]

Done— Rod ^talk 21:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC) - This is a section of two halves that I don't sit together all that well. The first para is about the location of the Sweet Track and a mention of lake dwellings. The second para starts by mentioning similar nearby tracks; the Meare Pool "teases" us (we know the purpose of these structures, but we are not telling); and then were is a long digression on Meare Pool which appears to be unrelated to the Sweet Track. I would suggest that almost exactly half the section (and three out of five citations) is about Meare Pool and not the Sweet Track; some justification (and preferably a link back) is needed.[reply]

I added some of this in response to another editors comment asking about the location & need for the trackway to be built originally. It was trying to describe and illustate the boggy nature of the terrain and why a trackway might have been needed - but happy to remove or rework if not relevant.— Rod ^talk 21:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery and study -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC) - Ref 10 (Williams (1992)) is a book, so page number(s) needed in the citation.[reply]

Pages nos (35-36) added.— Rod ^talk 13:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That first paragraph really needs splitting into two: the first half is about the discoverer (Ray Sweet) and then leads nicely onto (Professor) John Cole and the Somerset Levels Project. However, the article really aught to mention (Professor) Bryony Cole (who became his wife), the project was both Cole's; and its rather premature to "close" the project down in 1989. Publication and, I suspect, study has continued: including a "Time Team" involvement. I'm going to invoke "Scope" at this point.

I have added a little more on the Somerset Levels Project & a reference which gives the directors as Cole and B J Orme. Do you have a good source for more on their work?— Rod ^talk 15:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an interview on the Wetlands Project; an article on the Somerset Levels; and lots of other useful information in Current Archaeology No. 174 (Wetlands Special Issue), Feb 2001. In it there is a bibliography which includes: Coles, B and Coles J (1986). The Sweet Track to Glastonbury, London: Thames and HudsonPyrotec (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen references to this book elsewhere - they don't have it in my local library but I've requested a copy (Libraries South West Record)— Rod ^talk 21:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's a journal available on subscription - subscribers get a paper copy and access to pdf copies on CA's web site. I have a paper copy (I was a subscriber for quite a few years, but not now).~~

I'm sure I've seen a webcite copy of that issue of Wetlands Special Issue & used it in a wp article but I can't find it now.— Rod ^talk 21:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember changing a web-cite to a journal-cite. The archive, when first set up, was free for several months. They own the Copyrights and the site is protected by username & password. [Backcopies can be purchased without a subscription]. Pyrotec (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidently, having checked your recent edits, Ref 13 (BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGICAL AWARDS 1977 - 1998) states (twice) that the award was to John and Bryony Coles. Pyrotec (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Bryony Coles & B J Orme are the same person (maiden name?).— Rod ^talk 21:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right; and on the basis of ref 20 they were (possibly) married before 1986 and after 1984. However, as you only refer to John: your scope is inadequate. Pyrotec (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Bryony Coles based on ref 13.— Rod ^talk 14:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC) - The rest of the first paragraph on bog-wood should become a para in its own right.[reply]

I have split the paragraph.— Rod ^talk 15:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restating after a gap -

Discovery and study -

What is currently in this section is quite reasonable, but I think a minor expansion is needed. Possibly the first paragraph could be expanded, but that is only a suggestion, not a mandated change.
Looking at the various references already quoted in the article, I suggest that the following points should be addressed:

The project ran from 1973 to 1989 (yes, I know that is already in it). The work was rescue archaeology and was published in form of The Somerset Levels Papers (and several books / booklets).
A conservation laboratory was set up in Somerset and the County Museum had one of the largest collections of prehistoric wood.
This experience was used to guide other wetlands projects in the UK and elsewhere, such as the East Anglian Fens.
PEG was to conserve the wood. This is used in other projects such as the Mary Rose, there may be a link, but who knows.
The Coles went on to establish the Wetland Archaeological Research Project (WARP) and appear to be responsbile for Somerset having a Levels and Moors Archaeology Post (held by one Richard Brunning - quoted as a citation).
There was a Time Team programme that covered The Sweet Track and the East Anglian Fenland project.

Thanks for continuing comments, however I think this article might be straying into a Somerset Levels Project (which we haven't written yet) covering wider aspects of the archaeology of all the wooden trackways in the area, (NB care needed as there is a biodiversity/ecology project of the same name) rather than focusing on the Sweet Track, which is the focus of the article.— Rod ^talk 21:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rod, If you wish to make a case that some or all of my comments above are more relevent to the (unwritten) Somerset Levels Project then by almeans do so here. If I agree, I will strike through the relevent comments. The phrase "Somerset Levels Project" does appear in the article but it is not linked / red-linked so I was not aware of the intention to create one. Pyrotec (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a sentence saying that samples are held in the Somerset County Museum, however I think the others areas would be more relevant to a wider article, which examine the discovery and conservation of a wide range of wooden trackways on the levels, WARP. Brunning's post etc - however I'm not intending to write it at present (I currently have an FL nomination, another GA nomination & this years crusade to get all Somerset settlements with over 5,000 population to GA). I think the criteria relate to whether this article provides comprehensive coverage of the Sweet Track, including appropriate context, rather than details of other wetlands archaeology projects in the area & if we go to far down this road could detract from the specific focus of this article.— Rod ^talk 21:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Construction -

Quite a reasonable section. I read in one referenced (sorry I failed to note which one) that the track must have been brought into use as a whole, i.e. a part complete track was useless.

Conservation -

Quite a reasonable section in respect of in-situ conservation; and the British Museaum section is also covered. However, see my comments above about samples preserved at held at Somerset County Museum, which is not mentioned in this section.

WP:Lead -

Quite a reasonable Introduction and summary of what is currently in the article. It migh need a slight tweak to take into account my comments above. Pyrotec (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Well referenced.

B. Focused:
Well referenced.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an interest article on an archaeological topic. 19:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)