Talk:Hillforts in Scotland/GA1
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) 18:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll review this in the next few days. Jamesx12345 18:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- The scope of this article is somewhat fragmented across Hillforts in Britain and List of hill forts in Scotland. I think if the former was moved to Hillforts in England and the latter merged into this article there would be an improvement in terms of navigability.
- I am happy to accept there being a separate list, but there is no point in working on this article (from your perspective) if it is to be the subject of a merge discussion in a short time. Moving Hillforts in Britain to Hillforts in England and not leaving a redirect would make more sense to me. I won't push the issue any further, because as you say it is not necessary for the purposes of this review. Jamesx12345 15:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- The intro needs a bit of copy-editing. Links to hill fort and Scotland, as well as some mention of when and by whom they were built. The history of study is less important, I think, and could make its own separate section. Jamesx12345 15:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- "introduced" - were they from somewhere else? I can't think of a better word.
- "Clyde-Forth line..." - southern Scotland would be clearer.
- Lots of "largest, mostly, most, many, some" - potentially weasel words.
- The refs are all books, so harvnb would look a lot nicer (IMHO.) That said, there is some variety that would be best gotten rid of in how refs are implemented. Jamesx12345 15:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- "with a close relationship to Roman constructions" - I don't fully understand this in context. Does it mean those that have been used/ modified by Romans?
- Paragraph 2 of Early studies could use a few more refs. If ref 2 covers everything, implementing it a few more times as per the previous paragraph would look better.
- Link Palisade
- "can also be found" - redundant. More info would avoid having to say this.
- The section Classification and function seems to move beyond the scope of the title. A section on Construction might be possible.
Jamesx12345 16:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Part II[edit]
Sorry for the delay in doing this. Jamesx12345 21:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- "some of which may have been a response to Roman siege warfare." - this could do with a ref.
- "some seem to have" - "archaeological evidence suggests" (presumably) is less hedging.
- "r. c." - is that similar to fl.? I can't say I've heard it used in this context before.
- The format of the references appears to be consistent, but the bibliography is redundant. My preference when citing books is to use {{harvnb}}, but you might have something else.