Talk:Kingston Russell Stone Circle

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 21:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Guess who? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• There's some repetition of "positioned" in the location section. "downland" is undefined jargon.
  • I've removed one instance of "positioned". I've also added a link to Downland; I think that the link works better than embarking on an explanation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• "189 metres (620 feet) above sea level.[4] The historic house of Kingston Russell is about a mile to the north" Switch from metric to imperial, with no "translation" in the latter case.
  • Good point. I've changed the prose here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Category:Scheduled Ancient Monuments in Dorset?
  • Good idea. I'll add it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Is the site owned by English Heritage? That's what the infobox says, but not the impression I'm getting from the article body.
  • English Heritage certainly have a page devoted to the site on their website, but on further inspection of that it does not appear to mention any ownership. I'll remove the statement from the Infobox. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• "The Dorset circles have a simplistic typology, being of comparatively small size, with none exceeding 28 metres (92 feet) in diameter" this is the largest, right? May be worth mentioning at this point in the article. Could you check the sizes? Elsewhere in the article, you say this is 27 metres in diameter.
  • Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• If I was being picky, I'd say that "ridge" and "recumbent" could be described as jargon
  • I've replaced "recumbent" with "lying on the ground"; and removed "ridge" by merging two sentences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Sources and images are fine.

A search for further sources has thrown up little of importance; given the rather limited number of sources, I think this is probably about as good as the article can get. I'm sure I'll be happy to promote once a few fixes have been made. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I thought it odd that there were so few sources dealing with this site, particularly given that it is the largest in Dorset. Hopefully the existence of this fleshed-out article will help to inspire further research into it in future, at which point the article itself could be expanded. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No further comments; happy to promote! Josh Milburn (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)