Talk:Danebury/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * Starting GA review.Pyrotec (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Initial review
This article is a clear readable exposition on the Danebury hill fort; and it is well illustrated.

At this point I'm putting the article On hold. The article is based on a single source, i.e. Cunliffe's 1983 write up of his excavations from 1969-78. That itself is not necessarily sufficient a reason to fail the article; however, the source is now some 25 years old and its conclusions may not necessary fully reflect current thinking. I would like to establish whether the conclusions reached by Cunliffe 25 years ago have changed; and if so, some discussion of what these changes are (were) should appear in the article.

If they cannot be found in the next week, I'll award GA status; otherwise, I'll be looking for an update.Pyrotec (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Review
The article is quite readable and well illustrated; and has the makings of a GA, but I don't consider that it is currently at GA standard.

There is some doubt about the current validity/accuracy of the information given in the article and the scope of the article, which is based on a single source. For example, reliable sources (Cunliffe) state that excavation extended over 20 seasons: 1969-88 and that excavations of comparable sites continued from 1989-97; whereas the article states 1970s (WP:Lead) and 1969-78 (Investigation). As this article is based (wholly) on a book published in 1983 (and probably written 1981-2) it cannot realistically cover more than the first 50 % to 75 % of the excavation period.

As a way forward, English Heritage provide a pdf downloadable version of their monograph The Wessex Hillforts Project: Extensive survey of hillfort interiors in central southern England, by Andrew Payne, Mark Corney and Barry Cunliffe, (2006) at, which provides some information on Danebury (and comparable sites) and an extensive bibliography. I suggest, in the first instance, that the article is reviewed against Payne, Corney and Cunliffe (2006); and I will kept the article On Hold.Pyrotec (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice find, I had no idea English Heritage did full publications online. I'll take a look at the source and see if I can get the article up to scratch. Nev1 (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review
OK you can have your GA, but I think it would be useful to add information about the geophys, i.e. magnetometer, survey done in 1997, that is discussed in Payne, Corney and Cunliffe (2006) on pp 59-62 (and possibly elsewhere in that paper).Pyrotec (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I think there is some scope for slightly expanding the coverage of this site (see above), but I'm awarding GA at this point.Pyrotec (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)