Wikipedia:Peer review/Stonehenge/archive1

Stonehenge
There haven't been many archaeology Featured articles and I think Stonehenge could make it. I'd especially appreciate feedback on the modern significance of the monument as things like the Poltantric Circle are beyond me. adamsan 17:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Great article. A few things that I think need attention:
 * The lead and the overview section should probably be put together and made into the lead. For articles of this length, the lead should probably be longer, and the overview section contains alot of the material that should be in there (see Lead section).  Adding info to the lead like the world heritage status, where the name comes from, and a quick overview of the construction phases would be perfectly fine in my mind – three paragraphs in the lead (that are about the size of the current one) would work great.  That way you can start right away with the history after the lead.
 * For the pre-history section, Stonehenge 3iii (and 3v and 3vi) is really short – isn't there anything that could be added? Different theories, anything?  I know you weren't looking for this type of request, but I think it's important for the article.
 * Third paragraph of "early interpretations" - "The first serious effort" suggests that the previous guys weren't serious. How do you know?  Was it because they thought it was used religiously?  If so, that's POV in my mind, especially because Stukeley made some wrong conclusions too.
 * Penultimate paragraph of Recent history – looks POV to me. Who said that?  How can everyone agree?  Surely some want to see the place remain untouched?  Perhaps more tourism would be damaging?
 * I'm not sure about this one, but perhaps there shouldn't be a list of everything named/related to stonehenge at the end of the article. Maybe just a few of the most notable replicas should be considered and elaborated on, beyond a few lines.
 * More variety in the pictures would be great – is it possible to get a photo that's looking down on it (not from directly above, but from the side a bit).
 * Edgerton's "Stonehenge at Night" is a truly striking photograph, and is probably worth a mention. I'm guessing it can't be included because of copyright issues, but if it can it would make an excellent addition. Evand 16:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * One more thing - I had some trouble finding the height of the rocks. Maybe I'm missing something, but that should be in the lead.  Probably so should the diameter of the circle.  --Spangineer &#8734; 04:52, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Spangineer, that's given me lots of useful stuff to work on. adamsan 13:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The last time I had the opportunity to visit this monument, tourists were only allowed to walk along a circular path set some distance from the stones. We were provided with a headset and a device that provided lectures at selected points. This was in stark contrast with my first view as a kid when I could walk through and around the rocks, but I understand the need to keep people out. Anyway the new arrangements might be worth a mention. &mdash; RJH 20:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * In fact, there are still tours that allow visitors to walk close to the stones, even to touch them, but only on special occassions arranged by (and with the supervision of) English Heritage. I'd also mention Stonehenge's impression throughout later times, like the Roman era and Middle Ages. -- Shauri 23:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Lead needs expantion. Merge short 1-2 sentence paragraphs or expand them for example 'Stonehenge 3iii' section is just one sentence. There are elinks in the text, move them to the external link section and link with Footnotes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This should probably go on the Talk page, but as the article currently reads, there is a major error in it. In the second "Early Interpretations" the following sentence appears:
 * Stonehenge was first described by Nennius in the 9th century, who wrote that it was built as a memorial to 400 nobles who were treacherously slain nearby by Hengist in 472.
 * A quick search of an online copy of the Historia Brittonum shows that Nennius (traditionally credited with writting this work) never stated that. The claim originates with Geoffrey of Monmouth, as is explained further down in the article in the section "Myths and Legends". Gerald Hawkins' book (which should be included in the Bibliography) which does a decent job of documenting the traditions associated with Stonehenge (& mentions its place in popular literature), verifies this, as would checking the index to any translation of Geoffrey's work. -- llywrch 18:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point, it seems Nennius' connection with Stonehenge is tenuous at best. I will take it out immediately. adamsan 19:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The second image, Image:Stonehenge20040724_CopyrightKaihsuTai.jpg is mostly grass and not very helpful. &mdash;Wahoofive | Talk 23:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)