Talk:Dolebury Warren/GA1

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

Reviewer: Noswall59 (talk · contribs) 13:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 :     :    <li></li> </ol> <li>:</li> <ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha"> <li></li> <li></li> </ol> <li></li> <li></li> <li>:</li> <ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha"> <li></li> <li></li> </ol> </ol>

Please see below for detailed comments and suggestions for improvement.

Lead
The lead is short, but it does cover everything and I am happy with it.

Infobox
Do you have a reference for it being known "natively" as Dolebury Warren? In the lead, it is "Dolebury Warren (aka Camp)" yet in the infobox it seems the other way round.
 * English Heritage seem to cite it as Dolebury Camp (but in this have both names), but the National Trust call it Dolebury Warren here (and on signs around the site) as do Natural England. So I'm not sure which is "official" and which is "native" but happy to change the order in the infobox if that helps?&mdash; Rod talk 19:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reversed these so it starts with Warren (as article title) but still includes camp.&mdash; Rod talk 12:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Etymology?
I have looked at articles on similar topics which have reached GA, including your article on Solsbury Hill, and wonder whether this could be added; if so, then it should be (I accept that there may not be sources for it).
 * Eilert Ekwall and Poulton-Smith don't have entries for the name but added one from Robinson (Possibly less academic than the others).&mdash; Rod talk 19:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Geology and location
Brief, but it does give a topographical overview. As mentioned below, the path sentence about the Limestone Link path could be moved here. In the lead and ecology sections, you briefly mention the "differing soil types". Is there anything that could be included in this section to elaborate on that?
 * Link path moved. Atthill (p42) has "the soil shows quite marked changes in depth, related to the slope, and the amount of wind-blown material overlying the limestone rubble and bedrock: the vegetation here shows strong correlations with the soil depth".&mdash; Rod talk 19:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think it's worth mentioning soil types etc., then I can see no harm in doing so, and it would supplement the geology and ecology information.
 * I've added a sentence about the varying soil depth but I don't have anything specific on the soil types.&mdash; Rod talk 12:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

History
General points:
 * I am assuming that the warren was not settled at all (except for the warrener) after the Romans left - is this the case?
 * Not as far as I can see from the sources, apart from Athill's assertion about 5th century.&mdash; Rod talk 19:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay that's fine.


 * I notice that the plan in the article is from the Victoria County History of Somerset, volume 2 (1911). Is there a reason why this source has not been used elsewhere in the article?
 * The plan was added to wp back in 2006 (not by me). That volume doesn't seem to be available on British History Online. I have a hard copy version of Volume 1 but I've never seen a copy of Volume 2 for sale otherwise I would have brought it.&mdash; Rod talk 19:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. It also appears that the BHO version is limited only to ecclesiastical houses, when the original volume contained much more. I have access to most VCH publications and so will try to have a look tomorrow to see if anything else turns up.

Iron Age Hill fort
While all the content is here, I feel that this subsection is a bit confused in its ordering. You start by describing the hillfort as it is now and telling us that the site has been occupied since the Iron Age. You tell us about these forts in general, then you go back to describing the fort at Dolebury, before telling us that finds have shown the site was occupied in the Stone Age, millennia before the fort appeared, and then, in the same sentence, telling us about Roman finds. Chronological ordering might be better. I wonder if everything from the first paragraph in this section, except the first sentence, should be moved to the third paragraph. It seems more logical to say "there is a hill fort here. Hill forts are .... and emerged ... The hill fort at Dolebury emerged ... and is[description]". Then, you could also put the stone age and bronze age information right at the beginning of the sub-section. Bivallate and Rampart should be linked (I think Hill fort has a section called "types of hillfort")
 * I've had a go at rearranging to chronological order - does this read any better?&mdash; Rod talk 19:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, after the re-ordering, part of the section was duplicated, which I have removed. I've also tried to consolidate the history section, and I think it makes sense to move the description of the fort to a separate section - after all, this information serves a topological purpose, not a historical one and tells the reader how the fort is, not how it has changed. I also think that the header "Iron age hill fort" excludes the fact that there is evidence of earlier settlement and of Celtic field systems outside of the fort. I have also added information about the occupation based on the English Heritage report (Bowden). I am still not sure how the background info on hill forts fits in, yet I think it is important to have in the article.
 * Thanks - looks fine to me.&mdash; Rod talk 12:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Bivallate should be linked, as should rampart.
 * Done


 * Bronze Age should be linked Iron ore could be linked Roman should be linked.
 * Done.&mdash; Rod talk 19:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Roman and Celtic should probably be linked.
 * Done.&mdash; Rod talk 19:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Who was Atthill?
 * Local historian added.&mdash; Rod talk 19:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Medieval
Seems fine to me, although if you know who owned the land at the time, that might be a useful thing to add. Is there any information about roughly when it became used for warrening, or when the population declined after the Romans left?
 * Athill links the development of rabbit warrens to the development of Royal Forests and hunting licences - so 13th century ish but doesn't give any specific dates for this one. EH says "post medieval period " but I don't think there is a specific answer to that one as it may well have been used long before any documentation was recorded. "Atthill suggests that Dolebury may have re-emerged as an important centre of population in the 5th century." but nothing I can find from then until rabbit warren usage.&mdash; Rod talk 19:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A shame, because it feels like quite a gap, but I appreciate that it simply hasn't been covered, and such information may never have been documented (or has not survived). I do have access to the Victoria County Histories, so I may check there tomorrow to see if any additional information turns up. If not, then that's fine.

19th and 20th centuries
Seem fine in that everything is in chronological order, but the first paragraph seems a bit short. Perhaps it's worth putting it in context first: "By 1830, a three story building, believed to the warreners house and a watch tower, was in ruins. The Warren was visisted ..." Do we know who bought the land in 1906? Do we know who the NT acquired the land from in 1983? I wonder if the mention of the Limestone Link path fits in the history section - perhaps the "Geology and location" section? Is it used for anything at all now? (e.g. grazing) Is there any conservation work ongoing/has there been any major conservation projects there?
 * Nothing on the purchaser in 1906 but the NT acquisitions list says "Dolebury Warren. 92.657 hectares (228.96 acres). acquired freehold on 6 June 1983 from. Gosling, A G and D F and Kent, J M.". Limestone link moved. Avon Wildlife Trust preserve it as a nature reserve (see here) and I don't think it is grazed (at least not on the times I've visited and from the condition of the flora) and I'm not aware of anything in the way of specific conservation projects.&mdash; Rod talk 19:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ecology
I am not an expert, but this section seems fine to me.

General comments
This is a well-researched article about a topic which has relatively little coverage outside of local history and archaeology books. I see no reason why, with changes, this article should not reach GA standard. Well done,—Noswall59 (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the review - see my individual responses above, but if anything is unclear or needs further work just let me know.&mdash; Rod talk 19:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Rod, I've commented above. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC).
 * Hi again Rod. I have just looked over the article once more, and checked the VCH. The VCH didn't contain anything that hasn't already been added. As for the prose, there is only one phrase which I think needs tweaking, then it should be ready to pass. I will probably get a mentor to check my review, as I haven't much experience. The phrase in question is: "The site of the fort and warren is now grassy slopes" - this doesn't sound right to me, but I am not sure why... Thanks again, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC).
 * P.S. I asked Ritchie333 for comments and he has got back to me regarding this GAR (see the discussion). He is generally happy with it, but did ask about whether the geological history could be expanded a bit more, and why there are two infoboxes. Thanks again, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC).
 * There is some debate about how far south glaciation extended. It used to be accepted that it never got south of the River Avon but recent research suggests that some parts of Somerset may have been affected by it. User:Geopersona is my first point all call on the research research and I will ask the question, but there is nothing I've seen. The reason for 2 infoboxes is that one related to the scheduled monument & the other the same site but as an SSSI. The information in each is completely different and the boxes are not compatible with each other so can't be combined into one.&mdash; Rod talk 16:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, the two infoboxes are fine. If you want to discuss it with Geopersona, let me know the outcome. If nothing can be found, it will be fine; if anything is found, then I will check it once you've added it. Regardless, the article should pass. Thanks again, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC).
 * User:Geopersona has some thoughts but suggests the problem will be finding references for them.&mdash; Rod talk 10:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I am happy with this then. If references turn up, it will be worth adding, but I think the article now meets all of the criteria so I will promote it. Well done and good work, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC).