Talk:Witchford

Removed archaeology section
The following prose was removed as largely unsourced "Witchford's earliest root are shown in the archaeological reports centring around Lancaster Way Business park and is be summerized by Holmes and Simmonds (2009) showing: Neolithic flint industry, Iron Age features (roundhouses and ditches), roman activity (ditches and pottery), medieval farming (metals and ridge and furrow), 17th-century housing materials and WWII airfield evidence in a pipe from Ely. The site holds much contention for important roles in history, though no conclusive evidence; for instance Walker (1910) asserts that the site east of Witchford may be dense in Roman finds as it was camp Ibid created near the passing Akeham street. Similarly reports from Fowler during the construction of RAF Witchford destroyed an Anglo Saxon cemetry, which is widely believed to be attributed to the Saxon predecessor of Ely, Cratedun. The village next appears in the Domesday Book of 10086 as 'Wiceford' and is believed by Phillips to have once held a Norman church, later replaced by the 13th century church which remains to this day. Post medieval features too are noted in that Phillips shows gullies and ditches from this period on the nearby Manor Road and the 17th century Ivy House (again still surviving today). The next major occurence at Witchford was the construction of RAF Witchford in the Second World War (open June 1943-March 1946) here British, New Zealander and American airmen flying Wellington, Stirling and Lancaster bombers were launched against Nazi Germany and to drop food relief to Dutch civilians. The site surrounded 2 T2 hangars (one surviving) and an ‘A’ shaped airstrip, featuring structures like command towers, fuel stores and Nissen Huts; whilst the airfield’s domestic sites were dispersed throughout nearby Witchford. The site, largely cleared after closure, has evidence nowadays in plough soil, subterranean features, the airstrips and derelict buildings. The village though also boasts through local folklore to have housed the exiled Queen of Yugoslavia during the Second World War at the local Witchford House. A little archaeology focuses on the former RAF Witchord site, seen in many archaeological reports; two such being Holmes and Simmonds(2009), who noted the findings of Second World War water pipes from Ely, and Holmes (2008), who notes in magnometer surveys soil shifting from airfield construction and features such as ducts, post pits and bricks. The first and thus far only archaeological report into purely the airfield of RAF Witchford was undertaken in 2012 by Finch. This report highlighted some of the original nissen huts (now cleared and merely farmland) on the airfield acting as General Purpose Huts and Fuse Pointing Buildings and showed their architecture and function. Similarly the report also used local sources and standing building reports to show the development and architecture of the derelict WAAF Offices to the north of Witchford; and finally showed nissen huts in a domestic sense at the local Greys of Ely bus depot. The report now resides at the Cambridgeshire Historical Environment Record alongside many others, though the best indication of the airfield's archaeological reminensce can be gained by aerial photographs showing the marks of former buildings and airstrips still visible to this day."

A little more work on this prose will fix the issues such as spelling, grammar and sourcing. For example, Holmes and Simmons (2009) may be ; roman is Roman; Domesday Book 10086 is 1086; Holmes and Simmons is a house builder and archaeology reports produced on their behalf are produced by archaeologists; Cratendun is Cratendune; summerized is summarized (see ) ; nissen is a noun thus Nissen; many archaeological reports is vague&mdash;how many? etc etc -- Senra (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The recent re-addition of an archaeology section to this small article is WP:UNDUE, poorly referenced (e.g. "Phillips, 2012, report 1337" cannot easily be verified) and in some cases, references are not reliable (e.g. "Kevin Wallis, a local farmer and source of RAF Witchford" is self-published). In edition, attempt declares that "The information entered in the arcaeology section was false, and based on results from a school project which turned out to be wrong". On that basis, I have  --  Senra (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Re-uploaded Archaeology Section
With regards to the feedback on the archaeology section I have fixed the grammar where incorrect, meanwhile the Beaker finds in pits come from a later excavation in preparation for the Witchford Recycling Plant NOT Holmes and Simmonds (which as mentioned specified Bronze Age finds, which encompasses the Beakers anyway). Furthermore I have referenced reports such as Holmes and Simmonds (2009) just as other archaeological reports have so is correct in being in keeping and I don't see the problem if they're identifiable and give credit where due; if you wish to mirror the 6-7 hours research I did up and Cambridgeshire, then correct it be my guest! Use of local sources obviously isn't a magic wand approach, but it's supported but archaeology and quite frankly at a small village that's as good as it's going to get. Finally with regards to it being a school report I'll say this:I spent 6-7 hours researching, 2 hours on a standing building, 12 hours fieldwalking, 22 hours test pitting and countless nights awake until 12 typing and analysing; no report is perfect but this is an very thorough A-level report with full critique and a damn sight more thought than a secondary school poster, again if you'd like to sift through 52 pages then be my guest I'll happily link you a copy. Thank you for the feedback and I'd ask you please to edit my entries rather than remove them without thought (as they are still adding plenty of information) or I'll just have to re-upload... continuously... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.116.68 (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please remove the material you added to Witchford and RAF Witchford then discuss the matter on my talk-page. Wikipedia is not the place for storing A-level reports, no matter how well researched. It is an encyclopaedia.


 * In small articles such as Witchford and RAF Witchford, walls of text on one topic (in the wider context) is undue weight. The text is poorly referenced (using personal recollection sources is original research and therefore not allowed on Wikipedia) and some references are poorly listed. See citing sources for what information to include in a proper reference. I will gladly help you but not if you insist on adding this material in this way. In addition, words such as substantial are puffery (see words to watch) and are not useful in encyclopaedic text. Phrases such as "could be seen far into the village" and " largely circumstantial evidence" are imprecise (unless directly attributed with quotes). I really doubt that Finch's report "poses the sole archaeological ..." as you claim.
 * You have entirely ignored an international audience by quoting figures in imperial units only


 * The grammar remains very poor. For example "it's" in your "that it's standing" (incorrect use of the contraction 'it is' instead of possessive pronoun 'its') and inordinately long sentence structures such as "The wider village ... under Manor Road."
 * See also WP:3RR and the BOLD, revert discuss cycle which you have singularly failed to adhere to -- Senra (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)