# Talk:History of Somerset

Move this to history of Somerset. --Robert Merkel 05:43, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Please review WP:WIAGA.  In its current version, this article does not meet criterion 1.  A lead section needs to be written, and the embedded chronology should be prosefied, per the guidelines. 
-Fsotrain09 15:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of November 11, 2006, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The lead should be re-written according to: WP:LEAD. The list should be incorporated into the text according to: Wikipedia:Embedded lists. Furthermore, a thorough copyedit is necessary. Also, there are several paragraphs that are one or two sentences long. They should be expanded or merged with other paragraphs. This: "See also Timeline of the Anglo-Saxon invasion and takeover of Britain." and this: "For the etymology of the name "Somerset", see Somerset#Etymology." need to be moved, the second to the very beginning of the article, before the infobox, the other maybe to a separate "See also" section.
2. Factually accurate?: The number of references seems to be adequate.
3. Broad in coverage?: It appears thorough.
4. Neutral point of view?: OK
5. Article stability? OK
6. Images?: OK
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration.  Thanks for your work so far. 
--Druworos 15:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The WP:MOS recommends that the BC-CE and BC-AD styles for stating dates ought not to be mixed in the same article, as they are in the Prehistory section. But that section further claims that man was present in the future Somerset from c. 500000 BCE. Is that right? Over half a million years ago? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments (& edits). I will look at BC-CE and BC-AD in WP:MOS & try to work that one out later but on the evidence for mans presence in c. 500000 BCE.... It seems difficult to get clarity (let alone agreement) amongst the experts: (NB driect quotes so will need rewording for use in article)
The document actually cited in the article doesn't give a specific date as far as I can see
Somerset Historic Environment Record says: "Cook., the only person to have studied the whole collection in detail, has grave doubts, based upon both technological and contextual data", "if this is indeed an archaeological site, it would be one of the (or arguably THE) earliest occurrences of human artefacts in Britain", "the main sequence of deposition was within Oxgen Isotope Stage 13 (524,000 - 478,000 BP) but it has not proved possible to securely date any specific phase at Westbury.", "Overall the consensus appears to be that the flints are evidence of a human presence which, with other more recently discovered sites such as Boxgrove in Sussex, constitute the earliest evidence of human occupation in the country"
Natural History Museum says: "Westbury Cave makes a persuasive case for many of the bone-rich Middle Pleistocene deposits belonging to a single but climatically variable interglacial that succeeded the Cromerian, perhaps about 500,000 years ago. Detailed analysis of the origin and modification of the flint artefacts leads to the conclusion that the assemblage was probably a product of geomorphological processes rather than human work, but a single cut-marked bone suggests a human presence. The controversy continues."
Mednip AONB - "Half a million years ago humans were using flint tools here when jaguar, rhinoceros and scimitar cat roamed the
hills.Worked flints from this period have been recovered from Westbury sub Mendip Quarry.These are now in the British Museum."

A Bradsaw Foundation paper on "Anglia Man" suggests  "re-examination of animal bones and artefacts unearthed in the 1980s at Westbury-sub-Mendip, in Somerset, have shown evidence of early human activity 100,000 years before Boxgrove Man." and dates the Boxgrove man at 500,000 years ago.
I think the conclusion has to be that we are not totally sure but there is an emerging body of evidence, based on the flints from Westbury, that human occupation of the area "around" 500000 BCE is realistic.— Rod talk 22:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the current revision of the page. Below is my assessment.

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 
All prose is readable, and doesn't use words that any editor/reader wouldn't understand. Y
The article is focused and addresses a broad range of information without going into unnecessary detail. Y
It is factually accurate and is backed up comprehensively with verifiable and independent, reliable sources.  Y
Manual of Style compliant. Y
Images are tagged and used appropriately.Y
Considering this, I am willing to  pass this article. Well done to all those involved! Best, Rt. 17:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


### Sorry to have to say it again, but ...
I'm sorry to have to raise similar objections to those I raised at the end of the recent Exmoor GAN, but once again I think that this article has been promoted prematurely, and that there are still some significant issues with it. I'll give one example: "There is evidence from artefacts in a quarry at Westbury that man was present in the future Somerset from c. 500000 BCE". Half a million years ago? That's a pretty bold claim, and one that I don't see supported by the citation given. I'm wondering if this time it wouldn't just be better to take this article to WP:GAR, to get it looked at properly? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to identify problems I'm sure we will try to address them. In connection with the "Half a million years ago" claim see the discussion above on this talk page entitled "comments" when I responded to that query (including references) setting out the basis for this claim.— Rod talk 18:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd certainly rather that the problems were addressed here than have to labour through GAR. But on the specific point about "man" being present half a million years ago, I'd like to know what kind of "man" this was, if indeed it was a "man" at all, as we Homo sapiens hadn't yet evolved. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to, please bring to GAR. I, and Malleus usually have slight disagreements, and I wouldn't like that to come in th way of what is in the best interests of the article. Personally, I don't think this is much of a deal to delist, but that's just an opinion. :) Best regards, Rt. 22:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This is not a personal disagreement with youy or anyone else. It is a disagreement over the quality of a GA review. Here are a few other of my concerns, for instance:
 DoneThere's a mixing of BC and BCE. One or the other ought to be picked.
There's a mixing of, for instance, nineteenth century and 19th century; again. one or the other ought to be picked.
 Done"However, the end was not abrupt and elements of "Romanitas" lingered on for perhaps a century." Why is Romanitas in quotes?
 Done"... when there were technological changes in metal working indicating the use of lead." Changes don't indicate the use of lead, but they may in some way involve the use of lead.
 Done"The age of the henge monument at Stanton Drew stone circles is unknown, but is believed to be Neolithic". Neolithic isn't an age, it's an archeological period.
 Done"Cheddar man is about 9,000 years old". OK, but just a short explanation of who or what Cheddar Man is might be useful. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for these. I've expanded the info on the possible 500,000 year old artifact & I've addressed most as indicated above, but I'm not sure about using the text version of numbers for centuries as I thought we were supposed to write it in full for numbers less than 10? I noticed most issues were from prehistory - are there similar problems elsewhere?— Rod talk 09:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the source for the statement that this has been dated by archaeology? Eastern Wandsdyke has been dated  but this is irrelevant. Adresia (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the evidence for this? There are many references to Somersetshire in the Saxon period. It was probably defined in the 8th century.  However, I accept that the term "county" was introduced by the Normans. As it is the sentence is misleading. Adresia (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That claim appears to be unreferenced. Why not rewrite the sentence (or paragraph) to make it clearer? (and obviously add any sources you have)— Rod talk 17:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Somerset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024051925/http://finds.org.uk/blogs/fromehoard/ to http://finds.org.uk/blogs/fromehoard/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103011429/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Somersetshire to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Somersetshire
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Somerset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071028164855/http://www.pillboxes-somerset.com/taunton_stop_line.htm to http://www.pillboxes-somerset.com/taunton_stop_line.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Somerset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017030550/http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/ASH/Romano-brit.htm to http://www.somerset.gov.uk/archives/ASH/Romano-brit.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120908072452/http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/ASH/Rivers.htm to http://www.somerset.gov.uk/archives/ASH/Rivers.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2025 (UTC)


### History of Somerset
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending 
Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)