Jump to content

Talk:Withypool Stone Circle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleWithypool Stone Circle is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 8, 2018.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 5, 2017Good article nomineeListed
January 19, 2018Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article


GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Withypool Stone Circle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 14:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Great topic. Happy to offer a review, but it may take a little while. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem Josh; thanks for the offer! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's really very little I can say about the article at the moment, which is very good. Thus, I think any improvements are going to come from incorporating more sources.

  • I see your ongoing discussion with Rod; some Googling threw up this book, which on page 406 identifies Porlock, Withypool and Amsworthy as three Exmoor stone circles. It does look like we have some scholarly disagreement, here, which is going to need to be explored in the article, I think.
  • I note that there's a more recent discussion of the circle here; I think this would be a useful source to reference for at least five reasons:
  1. It mentions that there are 29 stones; this seems to disagree with Burl. Perhaps you could introduce a degree of uncertainty into the article?
  2. It places it in the useful context of the many standing stones of Exmoor.
  3. It has details of the largest stone.
  4. It has a few other references which may be worth chasing up and/or adding to a further reading.
  5. Additional references may help with notability; I have no doubt that the site is notable, but I can envisage certain people demanding that the article be merged to a list or an article about the moor or something.
  • Interpreting Landscapes: Geologies, Topographies, Identities; Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology 3, by Christopher Tilley, may have some discussion; I can't view the relevant pages on Google Books. As it's so recent, it may contain new information that the other sources do not. If you happen to be able to access it...

Hope this is useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it looks like it's sometimes called Withypool Hill Stone Circle; this should probably be added to the lead. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks like there are 3 sources which remain to be looked at and an outstanding comment or two above. I'll hold off for now; no need to rush a promotion. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that that is everything, Josh. Many thanks for taking the time to review the article and for your patience on this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I've made a last few edits and I am happy to promote. My only other comment is about the metric/imperial switch in the article, but I'm not going to lose sleep over that! Thanks, Josh Milburn (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pickwell Down grits

[edit]

A red link is given to Pickwell Down grits, I think (but I am unsure whether) this is the same as the Pickwell Down Sandstones Formation, part of the Exmoor Group which includes most of the local rock types.— Rod talk 19:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounced with-ee?

[edit]

It seems like it would be pronounced /ˈwɪð.i/ like "with-ee", rather than "why thee", according to wiktionary:withy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Withypool Forever (talkcontribs) 15:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading exactness

[edit]

This is an excellent article, but I have a quibble about "spaced about one metre (3 feet 3 inches) apart". This is misleading exactness: about one metre is about 3 feet, (or better, about one yard) not about 3 feet, 3 inches. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]