Talk:Addington Long Barrow

Notes

Midnightblueowl: I'll add notes here; I'll also copyedit as I go -- please revert anything you disagree with.

• Can we refer to it as "the barrow" rather than "the long barrow" once we've established that it's a long barrow, for brevity?

• It's certainly possible but actually I think there are reasons to stick with "the long barrow." First, I think that that helps to underscore the point that this is a long barrow (which are Early Neolithic) as opposed to a round barrow (which are Bronze Age, then Romano-British, then early medieval) and just helps prevent any confusion. Second, referring to "the barrow" in this context could be read as being a reference only of the earthen tumulus and not the stone chamber. Thus, using "long barrow" makes it clear that we are referring to the entirety of the monument, rather than just one part of it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Suggest replacing "sub-rectangular" with something more widely understood, at least in the lead.

• "Roughly rectangular"? "Largely rectangular"? We could just go with "rectangular" but that would imply it was a perfectly balanced shape (which it isn't). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Collapsed stones on the northeastern end of the chamber probably represented a stone chamber...: I don't think "represented" is the right word. Perhaps "indicated" or "originally formed" or "were probably originally part of"?

• "once formed" looks pretty good. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think we could give a more explicit indication of the likely date range in the lead. Just saying "shortly after the introduction of agriculture to Britain from continental Europe" isn't going to convey much to most readers.

• I've gone with wording that we presently use in the Coldrum Long Barrow article: "Probably constructed in the fourth millennium BCE, during Britain's Early Neolithic period," Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Suggest using this sentence from the Chestnuts lead instead of what you have: "Two further surviving long barrows, Kit's Coty House and Little Kit's Coty House, as well as the destroyed Smythe's Megalith and possible survivals such as the Coffin Stone and White Horse Stone, are located on the Medway's eastern side".

• Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• For the context section, minor edits were made to the Chestnuts article; can we copy those edits to here? I see it's boilerplate, which is fine.

• I have now done so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Your changes look good, except for the link for "fourth millennium BCE", which I've just corrected, assuming it was a typo. OK on the points you didn't change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

More comments:

• In 1950, Evans stated that twenty-two sarsens were evident in the monument, eight of which were around its northeastern end. "Stated" always sounds unnaturally formal to me, and I'm also not keen on "evident" -- he just gives the number without saying whether he's deriving this from other sources or if he counted them himself. Evans also explicitly says that the eight at the northeastern end would have formed the burial chamber; seems like it would be nice to use that. How about "In 1950, Evans described the monument as having twenty-two sarsen stones, eight of which, at the northeastern end, would have originally formed the burial chamber"? You have "probably" for this in the lead, but Evans doesn't qualify the statement at all. I haven't read all the linked sources yet so perhaps some of them are less definite.

• I think your proposed wording works; I've incorporated it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Any reason not to include Colebrooke's inaccurate picture from 1773? We have the accurate layout, so it won't mislead the reader, and the history of investigation, including its inaccuracies, is of interest in itself.

• I have no particular objection to its inclusion, although I wonder where we might place it. There is already quite a few images in the article and I don't think we want it to end up looking too cluttered. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• There is no evidence for quarry ditches or scoops around the sides of the monument. I think this is too close to the original phrasing, which is "There is no evidence for quarry ditches or scoops." How about "No evidence has been found of ditches formed by quarrying for the earth to form the mound"?

• That works. I'll make the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Is there a link for "false portal"? I'm not clear what it implies. We have an article that's intended to act as a sort of glossary, here: Megalithic architectural elements, but it doesn't define "false portal". If not a link, a sourced footnote giving details?

• A false portal is an architectural element that looks like it should be a doorway but actually isn't. A "false doorway" would perhaps be a clearer term but "false portal" is more standard in the literature. I'll add something to make this clearer in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• In the photo of the remnant barrow, can we add that we are looking west, which would help orient the reader? The sourcing for the photo doesn't say that but it's easy to confirm with Google Street View. And what would you think of flipping the plan of the monument by 180 degrees, so north is pointing up?

• More than happy to specify that the image is facing west. I'll add that into the article now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Regarding the plan, I have no intrinsic opposition to it being flipped so that north points up, although in its current form that would mean that the actual title of the image would be aligning wrongly. I intend to re-do this plan, as my original one is pretty shoddy, so I could ensure that the replacement is north facing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks again for offering up these notes! Apologies for how long it took me to get around to acting upon them; I wasn't very active on Wikipedia last month and when I was I tended to get distracted by other things. Hope you're keeping well amid the lockdown. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

No hurry. Your changes all look good. I'll have another read through at some point. If you're planning to take this to FAC, I'll make sure I read through before you do, if you like. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

More notes

Had time today to read through, so here are some more notes.

• Suggest piping "stone-fruit trees" to Amygdaloideae and getting rid of the species name in the main text; it won't help most readers.
• The discussion starting "Based on a stylistic analysis" cites several archaeologists; to avoid saying "archaeologist Stuart Pigott...archaeologist Glyn Daniel...archaeologist John H. Evans...archaeologist Ronald F. Jessup" you could start with something like "Archaeologists have proposed several hypotheses for influences on the plan of the Medway Megaliths." Then all the subsequent opinions can be assumed to be from archaeologists.
• How about a link for Cotswold-Severn group? A redlink would be good if no article exists yet.
• whether they knew of the oak tree mentioned by Harris, but none had: "knew" and "had" don't work together; I'd make it either "whether they knew of the oak tree mentioned by Harris, but none did" or "whether they had heard of the oak tree mentioned by Harris, but none had".

The only other comment is that I still think the section on the Medway Megaliths is too long for appropriate summary style. Other than that and the minor points above I think this is ready for FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)