Talk:Coldrum Long Barrow

Excarnation photo is poor editorial judgement
Do we really need to have the photo to support excarnation? Even the article for excarnation itself doesn't have a photo. People wanting to read about an archeological site don't want to be caught off guard with such a morbid image. I think it's extremely poor editorial judgement to include it here even if it supports the article. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have to agree: the reference to excarnation is a very minor detail of the article's over-all coverage and I'd question whether devoting space to any image on the topic was truly advancing the encyclopedic understanding of this article's topic--let alone this particularly inappropriate choice. Honestly, I don't know how that particular image would illustrate/improve the actual article excarnation--it's not particularly high quality and doesn't really illustrate much about the process, being really little more than a picture of a corpse--but regardless, on this article it would only seem to serve as a jarring distraction. Snow let's rap 09:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Granted, the photograph in question is not of intrinsic importance to the article, but I think it worth noting it has been a part of it for at least five years with no one raising concerns, either at the Talk Page or at GAN or FAC. The image in question is neither particularly graphic nor gory so I don't see anything gratuitous about its use. Its appearance allows for some visual representation of the sorts of activities which may have taken place at the site during the Early Neolithic period and on this nicely complements the text. Moreover, removing it on the basis that some might find it morbid perhaps contravenes the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * My thoughts exactly Jason Quinn. The photo is not actually relevant.  Personally, I would remove it completely...and then again, why is the photo not included in the excarnation article?  The indubitable questionable use of this photo ALONE makes this article too edgy to be a featured article, by definition representing the best work of Wikipedia. Perhaps we could prepare the following legend:  WARNING - DEAD BODY PHOTO BELOW!  Certainly Wikipedia must have guidelines on the use of such photos, in medical or combat journalistic contexts.  Mousebelt (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go as far to say it's "too edgy to be a featured article", and the image is OK in context. That said though, I would probably support removing it as it doesn't IMHO add that much in terms of understanding the topic, and could cause confusion - at first glance I assumed it was a re-enactment set around the location of the long barrow itself, rather than in China.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @Midnightblueowl. This is an obscure article. Not many eyeballs would have seen it until it hit the main page. So it is not surprising that no specific discussion of the photo occurred for several years. What is surprising to me is that the photo and its fitness/unfitness of being included were not discussed during FA review. Among the many clearly apropos photos, this one sticks out like a sore thumb. No reviewer thought it needed debate? Wanting it removed is not NOT a question of censorship. As I stated, this is a question of judgement. I would not be opposed to the photo being used in a more appropriate context but here the link to excarnation is tangential and the merits of including the photo are minor compared to the drawbacks. While Wikipedia is not censored, please remember Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We don't include information (in this case photos) if it doesn't benefit the article and the reader as a whole. The bulk of editors seem to think, it was bad judgement to include this photo, and hopefully that sample is representative of the bulk of readers too so that removal the photo was a good decision. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest the photo be removed, it adds little to the article: the images caption includes the the phrase "...an excarnation process, as seen here in Sichuan, China, in the early twenty-first century." This appears to be something of an insult to Sichuan as being neolithic. In addition I'd suggest the body is that of an executed prisoner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastairm66 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC). Apologies Alastairm66 (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the picture of an excarnation from the article, following the above discussion. The picture is not directly related to the article, and could be included in the Excarnation article, which does not have any illustration at the moment. I would suggest that any decision to restore it in this article should be the result of a discussion.Olivier (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. There seem to be quite a few editors who think the image is unnecessary. While I do think that the image added something to the article, it certainly was not of sufficient importance that I would take this issue further. We have plenty of images of the site itself, so we can use one of those pictures instead. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Dodgy metric conversion
5.23 kilometres is not one and a quarter miles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Bell (talk • contribs) 04:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - the miles figure was the original, which presumably matches the source (and seems correct from Google maps). The 5.23 figure was inserted later and I assume just an incorrect conversion. I've amended it to say 2 km, which roughly matches the 1.25 miles figure, to one significant figure. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It is extraordinary to find a GA, let alone an FA, that had so many gross conversion errors. Template:convert is designed to prevent this sort of error, as well as providing the nbsp and parentheses needed for good formatting. What worries me now is whether the original source was written using feet and inches and an editor has incorrectly converted to metres, which I have just converted to imperial again with the potential result that the output may no longer match the source. If the source was written in imperial but the lead editor here wants to use modern scientific notation, then the data should be transcribed into the convert template in imperial and the order=reverse argument used. --Red King (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising this issue, Red King. I'll check the source material and ensure that any problems are rectified. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The situation has now, I believe, been rectified. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention. I was not using the convert template when I wrote this article and brought it through GAN (2015) and FAC (2017); I have only been using it in more recent years. I'll be sure to add the template to other, older articles that I have worked on as and when I prepare them for FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Embarrassing
It's a shame this went up on TFA in the state it did. "Off of"? Hardcoded image sizes? Every third sentence containing "although"? It looks like it was written by a ninth grader. Rather surprising to see the prose was allegedly vetted at FAC. I lack the time and energy to see whether it was this poor when it passed FAC, or whether it was better and has been allowed to deteriorate. It's immaterial. Please fix it. --The Huhsz (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you are comparatively new here at Wikipedia but I really recommend that in future you pay more attention to Civility. It isn't helpful to accuse other editors of producing articles that read like the work of "a ninth grader". Worse were your comments to User:Amakuru after they reverted your own prose edits, which introduced a host of problems into the article. If you have comments about the language used in the article then you are more than welcome to raise those concerns at the Talk Page, but please do not belittle and threaten other editors, as you have done here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page, Sherlock. I raised these problems three weeks ago and I see they have not been addressed. I see for example we still have "off of". This is the writing of a ninth grader. It is not of Featured Article quality. Please fix it. --The Huhsz (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding, can you please list some of these problems? Thanks in advance. --The Huhsz (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * While we are witing for to answer, well done to  who fixed the ninth-grader mistake which had been restored to the article by a no-doubt well-intentioned editor trying to defend the article and its mistakes, for reasons of their own. Now, here's another fairly easy one. There are twenty-five instances of "although"; here's a sample:  This is more of an eleventh-grader mistake, to be fair, but it is a mistake nonetheless. If we fix these, will they be restored to the article again? --The Huhsz (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, Civility. Writing in a respectful manner towards your fellow editors is not optional. Do not compare them to children and certainly do not threaten them. As for issues that your edits introduced to the article, I'd point to this edit. Here you have removed text specifying who Robin Holgate and Caroline Malone were; generally speaking, in highly ranked Wikipedia articles, it's a rule of thumb that a person's disciplinary background be mentioned. That same edit also changed "Many archaeologists have suggested" to "It has been suggested", which removed the agency of the scholars in question. Nothing major, granted, but these changes were not improvements. If you have other suggestions about how you think the prose can be improved, then fine. Raise them here. But don't go about insulting people while you do it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am awfully sorry for anybody's tender ego that has been damaged by pointing out how poor those edits were, and how they damaged the quality of the article. Never mind. Those were very minor quibbles and it might have been better to just undo those that you were unhappy with (or discuss them here!) rather than make a blanket revert that restored ninth-grade errors (or, per Red King, a "silly vernacular English typo") to a (supposedly) Featured Article. Another problem that our absent friend restored with his revert was the hard-coded image sizes; per Manual of Style/Images we don't do that, and MoS compliance is, I think, still a requirement for Featured Articles. Well done though Midnightblueowl for the work you are now doing to repair the damage Amakuru caused with the revert. On civility; if you want to get the best from all editors, don't revert their hard work which you acknowledge is (mostly) an improvement, then ignore their talk-page suggestions for weeks, leaving the article in a poor state for a long period. Never mind; there is no deadline and I am sure this article is savable if we can work better together. --The Huhsz (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Midnightblueowl does not wp:OWN this article, nor do they claim to do so – your finger-pointing is neither necessary nor appropriate. There is no difference between this and any other article: editors can correct and improve at any time and don't need to make a big drama out of it, as you are doing, and rather rudely at that. My own experience is that constructive edits have been welcomed. The main contributors' expertise is in archaeology, not English grammar: the errors are trivial and the essential information about the site and its context is clear and competent. You made a heavy-handed edit that Amakuru reverted: rather than learn from it, you decided to attack. I suggest that you take time to reflect, starting with working out how much effort is to develop a new article, research and record all the citations, then distil a one page accessible-to-nonspecialists summary out of a number of very technical monographs, journal articles and academic publications: I assure you that the answer is 'a great deal'. Many people can copy-edit, original content is rather more difficult. --Red King (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And while I think of it, passive voice is deprecated: I for one will always tag expressions like "It has been suggested" with and suspect wp:weasel wording. --Red King (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem with anything you have said. You're right that nobody owns this article. I agree too that the essential info in the article is excellent. The difficulty is in what looks like in reality; it ideally shouldn't look like a blanket revert that restores poor language to the article. This discourages improvement and makes it look like an OWN situation. I think I'm happy now that normal editing is ongoing, and again I apologise if I dealt with the unfortunate revert in a heavy-handed or ill-tempered way. As regards original content I know what you mean; it's a lot of hard work, but that should not preclude reasonable improvements of language. Now, let's get on with making this article merit its bronze star. --The Huhsz (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)