Talk:Eddisbury hill fort/GA1

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

Comments to follow Nice article, I'll await your responses before a final read-through  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Images are appropriate and GFDL licensed, but lack alt text
 * References have appropriate formatting and appear to be reliable
 * Lead overuse of the article title, I think. Almost every sentence appears to have Eddisbury hill fort in it
 * the hands of a new group of people Do we know who? I'm not an archaeologist, so it's not obvious to me
 * Location and layout There are two groups of hill forts in the county, each with three members (Maiden Castle is on its own in the south); bit clunky, what about something like The forts form two geographical groups of three, with Maiden Castle is on its own in the south of the county or something similar.
 * Can we have either here or in the lead some idea where this place is (nearest town?)?. The Hundred of Eddisbury link which I thought would help turned out to be a redirect, which you could fix
 * sits on part of the central ridge that runs north–south through the county, here Eddisbury Hill. strange phrasing, reads as if there is more to come
 * History The settlement was concentrated on the eastern part of the hill the fort is on clumsy, The settlement was concentrated on the eastern part of the fort's hill maybe?
 * Five of the hill forts... could we have five of the seven hill forts... so we don't have to refer back to see how this compares to the 15%?
 *  rest of the site is part of a local farm. Do we know the farm's name?
 * Please check these tweaks


 * Good point about the lead, I've given it a copy edit. I've added alt text, although the images aren't awe inspiring. I also like your suggestion for the location section (that sentence had been bugging me but I didn't know how to approach it) so I've used your phrasing. The other suggestions and various copy edits have been implemented. As for the "new group of people", I'm afraid we don't know who they were, or even who they replaced, just tat they were the new social elite so it's intentionally ambiguous. 19:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'm happy with the changes, the article is clearly up to standard, so let's do it!  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: