Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Withypool Stone Circle/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2018.

Withypool Stone Circle

 * Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about one of only three late prehistoric stone circles located in the southwestern English county of Somerset. It has been a GA since March and is probably as comprehensive as it can possibly be until archaeologists carry out further excavation of the site. Having brought another stone circle article—Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas—to FA status in April, I would like to try and achieve the same success with this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Usernameunique
Looks good, and specific comments/suggestions are below; feel free to disregard stylistic points if you disagree, of course. Two general points:
 * 1) The significance of the site seems split between "Context," where you offer general suggested ideas for the reason being stone circles, and "Investigation," where you give Gray's suggestion that this one was used for cremations.
 * I kept Gray's suggestion apart because it does not seem to have gained any further support from later archaeological commentators; thus I thought it best to present it where it is rather than as part of the wider archaeological discussions of what stone circles were all about. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) "Investigation" feels somewhat incomplete. It only covers up to 1909/1925, yet it is clear that there have been investigations at least up to 1989.
 * I've added an additional sentence mentioning Fowler's fieldwork in the 1980s. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead

"In diameter it measures 36.4 metres (119 feet, 6 inches) across."
 * "across" is redundant.
 * Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Location

"with some sources referring to it as Withypool Hill Stone Circle."
 * How about "and is sometimes referred to as Withypool Hill Stone Circle."
 * Doing so would switch the prose from active voice to passive voice. Personally, I'm not really fussed about that but there are definitely editors who urge us to use active voice wherever possible, deeming it more engaging for readers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"The site is at a height of 381 meters (1250 feet) above sea level."
 * How about "The site is 381 meters (1250 feet) above sea level."
 * Good idea. Will change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"two and three-quarter miles south/south-west of Exford."
 * Every other measurement in the paragraph is converted, why not this one?
 * Quite right. Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"east-southeast ... south/south-west"
 * Two inconsistencies: 1) east-southeast is separated by a hyphen, and south/south-west by a slash, and 2) southeast doesn't have a hyphen, while south-west does (there are many more examples with the hyphen later on in the article).
 * I've ensured that everything is standardised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"a range of different Bronze Age round barrows, or tumuli"
 * Are you using "round barrows" and "tumuli" are the same thing (if so, do you really need to use both terms?), or that both are visible (if so, use "and" instead of "or")?
 * These terms are synonymous and I was trying to convey that. Do you think that there is a better way to convey that? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "a range of different Broze Age round barrows, a type of tumulus..." What's confusing about the current wording is that seemingly synonymous terms link to different articles about different (but very similar) things.
 * Agreed; I've altered the prose to your suggested variant. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"although this can no longer be seen from Withypool Stone Circle itself."
 * Why not?
 * The barrow has been eroded to such an extent that it no longer sticks out of the top of the hill. I have amended the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"The three Brightworthy Barrows ..."
 * This feels like a lot of red links. Are you thinking of creating articles on them?
 * Perhaps one day. They certainly all warrant articles, but I'm not sure that I have the time in the near future to go and create articles for all the different barrows on Exmoor. It would be a very time consuming process. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Also visible from the circle is a scatter of over thirty stones on the Westwater Allotment"
 * What is the significance of this?
 * It gives a description of the environment surrounding the stone circle; it is probably of importance for individuals interested in the phenomenology of the site? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Westwater Allotment/Withypool Common
 * What are these?
 * The names of particular fields in the area. Do you think that this needs to be made more specific? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Context

"While the transition from the Early Neolithic to the Late Neolithic—which took place with the transition from the fourth to the third millennium BCE—witnessed much economic and technological continuity..."
 * The part within dashes feels a bit repetitive. What about something like "While the transition from the Early Neolithic to the Late Neolithic in the fourth and third millennia BCE..."
 * A good alternative. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"and were instead replaced by circular monuments"
 * I don't think you need "instead." Also, "had been" might be better than "were."
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"These include earthen henges, timber circles, and stone circles. These latter circles..."
 * Consecutive sentences beginning with "These."
 * Changed the latter to "Such". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"These stone circles typically show very little evidence of human visitation during the period immediately following their creation. This suggests that they were not sites used for rituals that left archaeologically visible evidence,"
 * This is somewhat circular, seemingly boiling down to 'These stone circles show little evidence of human visitation. This suggests that archaeologists did not find visible evidence there.'
 * I see your point but am not really sure how to go about making changes. I wanted to keep the statement of observation apart from the statement of interpretation, although granted they can seem a bit repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

"The archaeologist Mike Parker Pearson suggested"
 * Perhaps "suggests"?
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"There are only two known prehistoric stone circles located on Exmoor: Withypool and Porlock Stone Circle. The archaeologist Leslie Grinsell noted that there was a circular stone monument on Almsworthy Common that was "probably" also the remains of a stone circle, although P. J. D. Way argued that it was a rectilinear stone setting, perhaps a series of parallel stone rows."
 * What about the possible one mentioned in the last sentence under "Location"?
 * I think that the issue is one of archaeological acceptance and recognition. There are only two sites in Exmoor that archaeologists unanimously recognise as having been stone circles. There are perhaps other examples which someone has suggested might be a stone circle, but here is no real consensus on that. Do you think that the wording could be amended to explain this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You could say "unanimously recognised" or "generally accepted" instead of known, if you like. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Who is P. J. D. Way, another archaeologist? Do you really need to introduce each person who offers a theory, or is it enough to state what the theory is?
 * Generally, I find it best to attribute specific theories to the individuals who proposed them, where that is possible. Way was another archaeologist, and I have made that clear in the text now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Archaeologists have attributed these circles to the Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age"
 * "dated" would be more precise than "attributed"
 * Should it be "Age" or "Ages"?
 * I've changed "attributed" to "dated" but I think it should remain "Age" rather than "Ages". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"The creation of these different monument types might explain why so few stone circles were apparently created here."
 * Perhaps "might also explain", since you gave another explanation (bad rock) in the preceding paragraph.
 * Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Description

"Plan of the site as it existed in 1905 (after Gale 1906)"
 * Presumably you mean Gray 1906?
 * Do you really need in-text attribution, or would a footnote do (the "after Gale 1906" could be added to the image page instead)? If you prefer it in-text, what about using ?
 * You're right, this is not only wrong, but also unnecessary. I've removed it from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Conversely, the following year Burl..."
 * This is the first time you mention Burl, so perhaps a first name is warranted (but see comment above about including archaeologists' names).
 * Good idea; I've added some text introducing him. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"The stones themselves are small; on average they measure 0.1 metres (4 inches) in height, 0.3 metre (one foot) in width, and 0.1 metres (4 inches) thick."
 * .1 meter seems small enough that you might consider giving it in centimeters instead.
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Investigation

"The site was first rediscovered in 1898"
 * I don't think you need "first." How about "The site was accidentally rediscovered in 1898..."?
 * Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"His horse stumbled against one of the stones, and on further investigation he located other stones within the bracken."
 * The horse located the other stones?
 * Changed "he" to "Hamilton". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "stumbled on" rather than "stumbled against"
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"He proffered the suggestion that the circle had been the site of cremations,"
 * How about just "He suggested"
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"In August 1909, Gray returned to the site for the first time in nine years."
 * But you just said that Gray went in August 1905, i.e., four years before August 1909.
 * I've had a good rummage, and unfortunately I cannot find the photocopy that I had of this source. Accordingly, I cannot at present check the information against the source to see if I made a mistake. What I will do is to simply remove "for the first time in nine years" altogether, which should deal with the problem at hand. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

"He noted that the circle was in largely the same condition as before, but that the ling and whortleberry bushes around the site were more stunted than they had previously been."
 * Is the part about the ling and whortleberry bushes relevant? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't a major point by any stretch of the imagination, but as the Reliable Source mentions it then we might as well do so too (or at least that was my thinking on the issue). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses and edits, and I agree with most of your comments. I've made a response to one comment above (tumuli/round barrows). Additionally, there are three minor points above that you did not respond to (see "This is somewhat circular...", "What about the possible one...", and "But you just said that Gray went in August 1905..."), and the two broader points at the top (numbered 1 and 2). But I look forward to seeing you address these points, and to supporting your nomination afterwards. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for responding to the two main points. Of the three issues withstanding, the most important is the apparent error about Gray returning to the site for the first time in nine years (also pointed out by ). There's also the line about there being "only two known prehistoric stone circles located on Exmoor" when in "Location" you suggest a possible third one, and, to a lesser extent, the somewhat circular sentence in "Context". --Usernameunique (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * many thanks for your attention and your patience. I had some difficulty with these additional points (in one case I could not find my copy of the source, in others I'm just not sure that I have a good answer to your query), although I have nevertheless responded to each of them. Take a look an let me know what you think. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, . Is this the source you need? --Usernameunique (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On clicking that link, I am reaching a page that states "This item is not available online ( Limited - search only) due to copyright restrictions". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , it works for me; perhaps access varies by country. Email me and I'll pass it along. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the original source (although thank you for the email offer); it states that "Until August[...] 1915, [...] Gray had not revisited this circle since he made a plan of it in 1906[...] He found it in practically the same condition as it was nine years before, but the growth in[...]." So it seems that the error was in the article's use of "1909", which I have corrected to "1915". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Support now that correction has been made. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review
All sources are of appropriate quality and reliability and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ceoil

 * The site was rediscovered in 1898 - excavated?
 * As far as I can see, it has never actually been excavated, so "rediscovered" is (I think) the most appropriate term here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is "rediscovered the term used in the literature? It can see from the photographs that its quite buried and not obviously a stone circle. Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The site is 381 meters (1250 feet) above sea level.[3] - this to me is a random factoid, as is that it is 670.25 meters (733 yards) east/south-east of Portford Bridge - would remove.
 * The reliable sources provide it, so in general I would be inclined to retain it. I can appreciate the view that it seems a little random, although it does perhaps convey interesting information about the landscape in which it is situated - i.e. we are dealing with quite a high up position in the land. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine. Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Support - my minor quibbles notwithstanding. Ceoil (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delighted to see "The Modern Antiquarian" in external links. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber
Taking a look....


 * The village of Withypool is mentioned in the lead but not in the body. As well that first sentence is a bit repetitive - hard to do anything about but how about something like, "Withypool Stone Circle, also known as Withypool Hill Stone Circle, is a stone circle located within the Exmoor moorland in the south-western English county of Somerset. . Lying [distance and direction] from the village of Withypool, ..."
 * There has been some tweaking to the lede, to incorporate mention of Exmoor within the opening sentence rather than in a second, standalone sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * A range of different Bronze Age round barrows, a type of tumuli - shouldn't "tumuli" be singular here?
 * I think that it should be plural, surely? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weird - I'd naturally say (for example) "the robin and seagull are types of bird (singular)" maybe that's a regional/variant thing? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking too. With identical structure, "a range of different seagulls, a type of bird" sounds completely right and "a range of different seagulls, a type of birds" sounds completely wrong. Not sure what rule of grammar to point to, though. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In every other instance I have tried substituting, it would be singular, and "a type of tumulus" sounds right. "Type" is singular, so the noun that follows should be singular too: "this type of tumulus" but "these types of tumuli". Simon Burchell (talk) 12:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise looking good WRT comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod
Looks pretty good. Points:
 * Lead para 2: "Although there were a large number of monuments construction in Exmoor during the Bronze Age, ..." needs something
 * This has since been rewritten as "Although many monuments were built in Exmoor during the Bronze Age". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "This scarcity of large stones may explain why Neolithic and Bronze Age communities used small stones, termed "miniliths", ... This suggests that larger stones would have been available had the sites' builders desired, and that the use of miniliths was therefore deliberate." - perhaps one of the sources makes the point that miniliths might be all that a mini-workforce could handle?
 * I don't think there was anything of that nature in the reliable sources, although it is certainly an interesting thought! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "The stones themselves are small; on average they measure 10 centimetres (4 inches) in height, 30 centimetres (one foot) in width, and 10 centimetres (4 inches) thick.[5] The largest stands approximately 0.5 metres (1.6 feet) above the ground..." Somewhat confusing - "height" seems to be taken from their current orientation, and so on. Is the 0.5 m a height? Might be better to clarify this, or just give all dimensions & explain the old + new positions clearly. Height + width + "thick" is odd - one would expect "length" or "depth" to make up the trio, but as I say, it might be best to abandon oriented terms.
 * I've changed "stands approximately 0.5 metres (1.6 feet) above the ground" to "protrudes approximately 0.5 metres (1.6 feet) from the ground". I have also changed "thick" to "in depth". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for taking the effort to read and review this one, Johnbod! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support all points covered. Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Simon Burchell
Scanning through now, but at first view looks in fine shape.
 * I see Bronze Age is linked, but I think British Bronze Age should also be linked from an appropriate place. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A link to Bronze Age Britain makes a lot of sense. Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In Context, "particularly in southern and eastern England" should probably read "particularly in what is now southern and eastern England", since England did not exist then. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The Historic England list entry number (1021261) ought to be worked into the article somewhere. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence mentioning this fact at the end of the "Investigation" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * There is a little additional information available from the list entry "Details" section, such as depressions left where stones used to be, and this should also be included. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a short sentence about the depressions to the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In the footnotes, nos 23 and 36 are differently formatted from the rest, presumably because they are websites. I would list them in the bibliography (which you could rename as References), with the published repeated as author unless an individual author is identified on the website. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies that I missed this, Simon. I've found it difficult to render these web sources as footnotes because they do not have a single author nor a specific date of publication. When I brought Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas to FAC, I did the same thing, rendering everything that I could as a footnote but leaving the Heritage England links as they are. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Have a look at what I did with the Historic England refs in Ambleside Roman Fort or Wimble Toot - would that be an acceptable format? Simon Burchell (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and reformatted. I think the referencing looks more consistent now. What do you think? Simon Burchell (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good, Simon Burchell. Thank you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, Simon, it is appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * support. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM
Very pleased to see this nominated here. I thought of you on Boxing Day when I had a short hike up to Birkrigg stone circle.
 * "Its diameter measures 36.4 metres" Its diameter is 36.4 metres, surely?
 * I've gone with "It is 36.4 metres (119 feet, 6 inches) in diameter", which I think is probably the best way to phrase things. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "used small stones, termed "miniliths", in the two" I might be wrong, but is this not an example of quoting words-as-words? If so, italics should be used.
 * Sure thing. Switching from quote marks to italicisation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "The largest stands approximately 0.5 metres (1.6 feet) above the ground" Would "0.5 metres (1 foot 7 inches)" not be consistent with your other measurements?
 * Indeed it would. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "a sample was taken from one stone and under examination revealed to be a hard, pale grey" was revealed?
 * Good idea. Added a "was". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Do we know anything about Archibald Hamilton? "Archibald Hamilton, a local vicar" (or whatever) might be nice.
 * The only information available in Gray is "Mr. Archibald Hamilton, of the Western Circuit". That's not very helpful, unfortunately, and I'm not sure that there is much that we can add to the article on this point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "Fernacre and Stannon stone circle" These two names, along with the title of this article, seem to suggest three different naming styles for stone circles on Wikipedia. This may reflect different norms for different circles.
 * You're referring to the capitalisation of "stone circle", right? I'll make sure that there is some standardisation here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Gray accompanied Hamilton on a visit to the site in August 1905 ... In August 1909, Gray returned to the site for the first time in nine years" ??
 * I can't find my photocopy of this source, but I will just remove the "for the first time in nine years" until such a time as I can re-consult the original article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Have there been subsequent surveys of the site since Gray's? I assume so. Perhaps you could consider something like "The circle has been surveyed on several subsequent occasions, including...". Just a thought. I assume it's never been excavated? If you have a source, it'd be worth mentioning!
 * Unfortunately, there's been virtually no investigation of the site in the past century (nearby Porlock Stone Circle has only been investigated very recently, in the past few years). I have nevertheless added an additional sentence discussing Fowler's brief fieldwork, which included the site. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Should Gillings 2015 not be Gillings 2015a?
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Very nice! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your time and attention, Josh - I hope that you enjoyed Birkrigg! There are a couple of points I need to double check against the sources but aside from that I have responded to every point you have raised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a shorter article, but I think that is appropriate for the topic, and have no objections to this being promoted. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

 * I know this is difficult, but can we aim for an opening sentence that isn't essentially "Withypool Stone Circle is a stone circle near Withypool"? The reader can guess that from the title.
 * I disagree on this point. Some stone circles (like this one) are named after a local settlement, but others (like Stonehenge, Boscawen-Un, Devil's Quoits etc) are not. Thus, the present wording indicates that this particular stone circle is named for a nearby settlement while also simply giving a useful description of its location, which anyone wishing to visit the site would surely want to know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * likely religious sites, with the stones Don't use "with" to join two clauses like that
 * Is there a specific policy on this issue? I've never come across this before. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ''Around thirty small gritstones remain, which may once have held around one hundred" What may once have held 100?
 * The prose has been altered to "Around thirty small gritstones remain, although there may originally have been around 100". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * south-western slope of Withypool Hill,[1] with some sources referring to it "with" again
 * Changed to "and". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 4.43 kilometres (two and three-quarter miles) Do we need to-the-metre precision? And why are we mixing numerals and figures?
 * It has been altered so that it is now all numerals. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 *  0.5m (1.6 feet) long, with two reported "with"
 * Changed to "and". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there a realistic prospect of those red links turning blue in the near future?
 * I'm hoping to getting around to creating them in the not too distant future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Where is Almsworthy Common on relation to Withypool? Especially important because it's red link.
 * I have created an article on Almsworthy Common so that we no longer have a redlink problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Why the quote marks on "probably"? And whose opinion is that?
 * It is Leslie Grinsell's, who is mentioned in that same sentence. I wanted to use quote marks around "probably" to emphasise that it was his opinion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * However, in contrast to the two known Exmoor circles "However" is frowned upon at FAC, and you don't need both that and "in contrast to"
 * I have removed the "However". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * western sides of the ring, with the stones perhaps "with"
 * I've changed this to "the northern and western sides of the ring; the stones perhaps in these areas may have been removed for use as road metal." Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * His horse stumbled on one of the stones, and on further investigation located other stones The horse discovered other stones?
 * This is a sentence that has been changed a few times during the FAC process by various editors. I've switched it back to "His horse stumbled on one of the stones, and on further investigation he located other stones within the bracken." Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * been the site of cremations, with the cremated human remains "with" again
 * I'm really not sure how else to rephrase this one, to be honest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Same question as Josh: have there been any other surveys or investigations since 1909?
 * I've added a sentence about Fowler's fieldwork during the 1980s. Beyond that, there seems to have been very little research conducted into this site. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting little article. Nice work on quite an obscure subject. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to read through the article, HJ Mitchell. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Happy with the changes you've made. I made on edit to get rid of a ", with" construction. The other one I pointed out is in the lead, likely religious sites, with the stones perhaps having supernatural associations. There are two remedies I'd suggest for that: just remove the word "with", or ; the stones perhaps [or "possibly"] had supernatural associations. As for policy, you won't find anything so specific in the MoS, but the FA criteria require professional-standard prose. The "with" connector is sloppy, and a tempting (but poor) way to splice two parts of a sentence together. It's popular with tabloid newspapers, especially in headlines because of space constraints. Tony mentions it on User:Tony1/How to improve your writing under "Two poorly used additives on WP". It happens to be one of my pet peeves, so I end up pointing it out at FAC quite a lot. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 18:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I've taken out the "with" from the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That was my last outstanding concern, so support. Excellent work. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 09:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, every comment has been dealt with and the article has five statements of support. Perhaps time to promote (unless anyone else has any comments)? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's just one outstanding comment from me, with regard to web refs (see above) - I'm very close to supporting too, just waiting for a reply. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment
I'm inclined to agree that it this is probably ready for promotion, but I'd just like a response to above, and also see if  or  have anything further to add before we promote. Sarastro (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I'd forgotten about this. I'll come back to it later today or tomorrow. I don't think there's anything fundamental but there are one or two things I'd like to see addressed but I have to be somewhere else right now. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 12:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've added my support now that the main issue has been addressed., I've offered one suggestion above that you could also incorporate if you like, but it's not major. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sarastro (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.