Talk:Mellor hill fort/GA1

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


 * Reviewing.Pyrotec (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments
An interesting article, and I recognise some of the text from Danebury.


 * I thought it needed a background section, and most of the work had already been done for Danebury. I cannibalised a bit and tried to rephrase what I could as the hill fort article is in a dreadful state. Nev1 (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Naturally I checked the topic out at Current Archaeology and came across Mellor Archeological Trust (and went to their website). After about the second reading of the article I spotted the External links section and the link to "Mellor Heritage Project", which turned out to be Mellor Archeological Trust.


 * I've made a note on the external link that the site is run by Mellor Archaeological Trust as they seem to use it as their own website. Nev1 (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two websites currently actively tracking development of Mellor archaeology - the Mellor Heritage Project/Archaeological website, and Timeslip-Mellor. The latter covers the geophysical surveys and the amber find. Jcday (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Coments:


 * The statement that 'Mellor is the only hill fort in Greater Manchester' aught to have a citation.


 * Quite right, citation added. Nev1 (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is also a nice picture in the article of a (modern) replica roundhouse; but its not mentioned in the article; and Mellor Archeological Trust (on their website) refer to a 2006 excavation report that has not yet been published (at least on their website).


 * The reconstructed roundhouse has been mentioned. As for the 2006 report, I've no idea where it is; Manchester University's archaeology department website doesn't help. Nev1 (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The University of Manchester's archaeology department isn't actually involved in the dig. The archaeologists are from the University of Manchester, but their academic concerns are more to do with the archaeological surveys required for urban development. I forget exactly which department they're attached to. It is extremely confusing. The reconstructed roundhouse was originally performed as a school project by Ridge Danyers College (now known as Cheadle and Marple Sixth Form College) and was originally intended to stand for only two years. Jcday (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgot to list cites for the roundhouse. DIY The Iron Age Way (I'm guessing the piece was written on a word processor, then pasted in without the necessary markup.) Room With A Phew by the Manchester Evening News. A light-hearted look at the work. Summary of Work Done covers the construction work, some of the details behind the project, and has photos from the construction phase. The teaching materials link seems to be broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcday (talk • contribs) 23:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I read the following paragraph as being entirely in the past, i.e. "'the archaeological excavations that have been undertaken since 1998 have been funded by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council and grants from the Heritage Lottery Fund, and have received news coverage. The site has been used as a training excavation for students and a community dig to introduce people to history, with the participation of Mellor Archaeological Trust.[9] Many of the artefacts discovered at Mellor during the excavations are on on permanent display at Stockport Museum'."


 * I suggest that the article is slightly expanded to remove the implication that all the archaeology on this site is finished and done.


 * Sorry about that, I was trying to be too clever for my own good by using the imperfect tense. I've changed it to present and have added a note about the open days. Nev1 (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Pyrotec (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

main review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

The article has been much improved overnight, so I'm awarding GA status. Congratulations on the quality of the article.Pyrotec (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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: