Talk:Updown early medieval cemetery/GA1

GA Review

Passed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 11:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at this - comments to follow. Should be over the next few days, but please ping me after a week if I forget. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs another look. We should start by bolding the title and explaining in simple, stating-the-obvious terms, what the Updown early medieval cemetery is (MOS:FIRST). As a general rule, each paragraph of the article should then form a sentence of the lead. The idea is that the final lead should serve as a summarised version of the whole article for those readers who won't read the whole thing (MOS:LEAD).

The lead definitely needed expanding. I've reintroduced the page title in the first sentence, and tripled the length of the lead. It doesn't quite follow the principle of one sentence per paragraph in the body, but I think is a better summary now. What do you reckon? Richard Nevell (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should establish early on in the body text when the cemetery was first used, and when burials appear to have stopped. This is covered later: I would suggest adjusting the "Location" section to more broadly cover the "History" of the site, with subheadings if appropriate, leaving the following section for the story of its excavation.

Absolutely - I've broadened the 'Location' section to cover the history of the site and added more detail, along with retitling it to 'Background' as the old title didn't reflect the revised content. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in and around Eastry: We should spell out where this is, and how it connects to Updown. It should also be linked on first mention.

I've started reworking the lead (and will add more detail) which makes the relationship with Eastry clearer, and what is currently the 'Location' section (also likely to change) makes it clearer now as well. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The area used to be covered by woodland.: roughly when: in the Neolithic, or the 1990s?

Good question. Awkwardly, I can't find anything about the wood itself either in the sources about the cemetery, Google Books and Scholar generally, or Horsley's Place Names in Kent (at least from a keyword search). My guess is that with the name 'Eastry' being derived from Old English the name of the wood is either medieval or later but that doesn't narrow it down much and hardly counts as a reliable source. I may have to leave this particular one unresolved. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any old maps we could use? Ordnance survey put free ones online going back to the nineteenth century. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. I've got as far as finding the wood on this map with the National Library of Scotland's online collection. I'll come back to this as I'm looking at it on a phone and it just about works, but a proper sized screen would be helpful. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note that it was wooded in the 19th century. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to archaeologist Martin Welch, "Eastry was an important regional centre throughout the Anglo-Saxon period": this would be better summarised rather than quoted, as the precise phrasing is not significant enough to justify lifting it per WP:NFCC: suggest something like "Martin Welch has described Anglo-Saxon Eastry as "an important regional centre".

It now reads Eastry was part of the Kingdom of Kent, and the archaeologist Martin Welch described it as "an important regional centre". Richard Nevell (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we be specific as to when the Anglo-Saxon and Early Medieval periods were?

In the body of the article, 'Anglo-Saxon' no longer occurs which simplifies that, and on the first instance where 'early medieval' is used whee qualification would help I've added a range. That is, however, the third time the term is used, but the first time is the opening sentence and for the second I've included a slightly different range. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In British English (in which the article is written), false titles are considered journalistic: use the archaeologist John Smith, the historian Becky Jones rather than historian Fran Morgan.

Done - I think it was just the two instances. I'm going to have to unlearn that habit! Richard Nevell (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is in common with most early medieval cemeteries in Kent: need to be more specific here: it is not the case that most E-M cemeteries in Kent are established close to a Roman road connecting Richborough Roman fort and the Roman fort at Dover

Good point! I've reversed the order of the sentences, going from broad to specific, and adjusted the wording which should make things clearer. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burials marked in this way may have indicated the burials were: can we fix the repetition here?

Sorted. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

east-west: endash, not hyphen.

Fixed. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should introduce what Eastry Court is.

I've added a note. The reference is inside the bracket as it applies to that specific bit of information. Welch didn't explain what Eastry Court is, but I didn't want to put the reference at the end as a reader could reasonably assume that it relates to her hypothesis which is relayed by Welch. It comes close, but isn't said in so many words. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't link in headings: the main article link to Updown Girl is the right way to do this. With that said, there seem to be two things going on in this subsection: the second paragraph should really come chronologically first, and definitely belongs with the description of the burials. I'd suggest that the second does as well. As before, suggest pruning these quotations to make sure that anything we can present in Wikivoice is presented as such: this is beneficial for readability as well as per WP:NFCC.

I've removed the linked from the heading.
I've changed the order of the section so hopefully it flows more logically now. I recognise the point about the overuse of quotes. I've erred on that side to reduce the chance of miscommunicating the results especially as race is potentially a sensitive subject. I've managed to trim it a little, do you think more work is needed? If so I'll have another go at it! Richard Nevell (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand why note 19 is only in the footnotes while the Historic England website gets a bibliography entry.
- That makes two of us, so I've made it consistent. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text (done for some, not for all).

I've added alt text for the two maps. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in full stops.

I've removed the full stop from the image where the caption is a sentence fragment. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All images are appropriately licensed.

Thanks for taking the time to review the article, UndercoverClassicist, I'll go through the above points over the next few days. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff: take your time, I'm happy to be flexible on the standard hold period if need be. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bearing with me, UndercoverClassicist. I think I've had a chance to address the points you've raised. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

UndercoverClassicist, Richard Nevell, where does this review stand? Is there anything left to do here? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My fault - dropped the ball on this one, I'm afraid. Will be able to give it a look next week and let you know if anything still needs to be done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second read/additional comments

in Eastry, Kent, United Kingdom was: comma after United Kingdom.
- Done. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we calling it "Updown cemetery" or "the Updown cemetery"? Not consistent.
- Now standardised on "the Updown cemetery". My thinking is that this means 'the cemetery at Updown', rather than that being the name of the site, which for the sake of consistency is Updown medieval cemetery. The intention is that it means the same thing but without being repetitive, and hopefully doesn't confuse things. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good solution UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest linking DNA.
- I've now linked it to ancient DNA. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest cutting the Welch quote and adjusting the preamble to get around the slightly tricky "1976 and 1989 cemetery sample" (he means the tombs excavated in 1976 and 1989, right?)
- I've shorted the quote and adjusted the lead up so that it's clearer (and simpler). Richard Nevell (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
after the term was used in a special issue of Current Archaeology.: when was this published?
- I've added the year (2022) but left off the month (October) as that's less important. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
project profiling the genomes from 460 individuals from medieval north-west Europe sampled five individuals: MOS:NUM encourages consistency within a sentence on numbers in words versus in figures.
- I've changed five to 5. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link "Late Antique" to Late Antiquity.
- Done. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a largely Continental Northern European ancestry: is there a part of northern Europe that isn't continental?
- Continental Northern Europe is the term used in the Nature article which, for the purposes of the study, is defined as Danish, Dutch, and northern German. I've kept the term as it's used in the sources and included the explanation in brackets. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Updown Girl" should be consistently capitalised.
- Now standardised on being capitalised. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The similarity of burial between Updown girl and her nearby female relatives suggests that Updown girl's ancestry did not impact how society viewed her: this is a strong statement: at best, we've got no evidence that she was seen any differently, but that is not positive evidence that she wasn't seen as special or different in any way. Particularly in press releases, archaeologists and journalists often confuse absence of evidence for evidence of absence. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The wording the source uses is "Had this ancestry affected how the girl was perceived by her contemporaries, or how she was treated in death? Archaeological evidence suggests not." My rephrasing had shifted the emphasis slightly. I think the line at the end of the paragraph is clearer and more robust, so I've reworded the text around that. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should have time to get to this in the evening (fingers crossed). Richard Nevell (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I think that should be all of those comments addressed, or at least attempted, User:UndercoverClassicist. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good: nice work on this article. Passing now. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.