Talk:Hillforts in Scotland
Hillforts in Scotland has been listed as one of the Art and architecture 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: April 23, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Hillforts in Scotland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) 18:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll review this in the next few days. Jamesx12345 18:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- The scope of this article is somewhat fragmented across Hillforts in Britain and List of hill forts in Scotland. I think if the former was moved to Hillforts in England and the latter merged into this article there would be an improvement in terms of navigability.
- I am happy to accept there being a separate list, but there is no point in working on this article (from your perspective) if it is to be the subject of a merge discussion in a short time. Moving Hillforts in Britain to Hillforts in England and not leaving a redirect would make more sense to me. I won't push the issue any further, because as you say it is not necessary for the purposes of this review. Jamesx12345 15:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- The intro needs a bit of copy-editing. Links to hill fort and Scotland, as well as some mention of when and by whom they were built. The history of study is less important, I think, and could make its own separate section. Jamesx12345 15:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- "introduced" - were they from somewhere else? I can't think of a better word.
- "Clyde-Forth line..." - southern Scotland would be clearer.
- Lots of "largest, mostly, most, many, some" - potentially weasel words.
- The refs are all books, so harvnb would look a lot nicer (IMHO.) That said, there is some variety that would be best gotten rid of in how refs are implemented. Jamesx12345 15:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- "with a close relationship to Roman constructions" - I don't fully understand this in context. Does it mean those that have been used/ modified by Romans?
- Paragraph 2 of Early studies could use a few more refs. If ref 2 covers everything, implementing it a few more times as per the previous paragraph would look better.
- Link Palisade
- "can also be found" - redundant. More info would avoid having to say this.
- The section Classification and function seems to move beyond the scope of the title. A section on Construction might be possible.
Jamesx12345 16:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Part II[edit]
Sorry for the delay in doing this. Jamesx12345 21:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- "some of which may have been a response to Roman siege warfare." - this could do with a ref.
- "some seem to have" - "archaeological evidence suggests" (presumably) is less hedging.
- "r. c." - is that similar to fl.? I can't say I've heard it used in this context before.
- The format of the references appears to be consistent, but the bibliography is redundant. My preference when citing books is to use {{harvnb}}, but you might have something else.
BCE/CE anomalous in a Scottish context[edit]
In Scottish archaeology (and British archaeology more generally), BC/AD is the common way to refer to dates before and after the (putative) birth of Jesus of Nazareth. 94.10.31.227 (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Art and architecture good articles
- GA-Class Scotland articles
- Mid-importance Scotland articles
- All WikiProject Scotland pages
- GA-Class Scottish Islands articles
- Low-importance Scottish Islands articles
- WikiProject Scottish Islands articles
- GA-Class Architecture articles
- Mid-importance Architecture articles
- GA-Class Archaeology articles
- Mid-importance Archaeology articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class fortifications articles
- Fortifications task force articles
- GA-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- GA-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles