# Talk:Mellor hill fort

Just a few things I noticed, I'd rather not change them without first asking.

"the hill fort overlooks the Cheshire Plain." - what's the Cheshire Plain?
I've added a wikilink, do you think that will be enough? Nev1 (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
"The settlement was occupied into the Roman period. Artefacts from the site indicate it was high status and took part in long distance trade. After the site was abandoned," - I changed the text here, but does one sentence follow the other - would a semicolon be better?
I moved the sentences around again, so a semi-colon isn't necessary. Nev1 (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
"It is on a spur about 220 metres (720 ft) above sea level," - is there a better word than 'spur' for a geological feature such as this?
"Spur" is the term used in the source, I'm struggling to think of an alternative. Nev1 (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
"between two valleys which drop steeply away and run west towards a confluence with the River Goyt approximately 100 metres (330 ft) above sea level" - this would suggest that another river is involved here
The valleys have small streams (unnamed in the source) which both flow into the River Goyt, I've hopefully made that a bit clearer. Nev1 (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
"excavated in the region and there are few Iron; there is a lack of settlement sites" - missing word there?
I'm not sure what I was going to say there, so I've removed "and there are few Iron". Nev1 (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll have a further read and try and help with the structure. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to that the following sentences are a bit odd:

Little is known about Iron Age activity in North West England as pottery is rare on the sites excavated in the region and there are few Iron; there is a lack of settlement sites and compared to the over 1,300 hill forts in England, there is a relatively low number in the north west

Should this be something like "there are few finds made of iron"? - presently it reads like there are few iron pots found. Also my understanding of the semi-colon (from here) is that it should seperate two complete causes that could each stand alone as a sentence. The second clause doesn't fit that criteria at the moment. Richerman (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I've cut a bit out, it now reads

Little is known about Iron Age activity in North West England as pottery is rare on the sites excavated in the region; there is a dearth of settlement sites and compared to the over 1,300 hill forts in England, there is a relatively low number in the north west.

Does it need further tweaking? Nev1 (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The first clause sounds good, how about for the second:
there is a dearth of settlement sites and, from over 1,300 hill forts found in England, there is a relatively low number in the north west. Richerman (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That's much better phrasing and it's now used in the article. Nev1 (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
In the history section it says "habitation of the site was repeated and spread over a long period". I'm not sure what this means - was the habitation continuous or sporadic? Richerman (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I wondered about that also, my guess would be that habitation was cyclical, perhaps seasonal. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
That's a big question that polarises the study of hill forts. The two main camps are those who believe they were permanently inhabited and those who believe they were seasonally inhabited or perhaps a retreat in times of conflict. Unfortunately, there's no way to tell as radiocarbon dating is an imprecise tool anyway and it would be difficult to tell if a site is disused for months at a time (years is easier). The phrase "habitation of the site was repeated and spread over a long period" is not ideal, I've removed "repeated" as it's a bit misleading. Nev1 (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The evidence appears to suggest that Mellor was a settlement, rather than just a vanilla hill fort. Part of this is the nature of the high-value finds (such as the amber and the bronze-making tools), which one would not expect to find in part-time accommodation. There has been a find of a Celtic Head in the region, implicating the Brigantes as the "owners" of the site. Brigantes were settled people, not migrants as was the case of tribes in the Cheshire plains. Next, it borders three different tribes, making it perhaps the least-safe place you could possibly retreat to in the event of conflict. Finally, it IS near or on ancient trackways that run north/south and east/west, and crossroads are a fairly common spot for permanent settlements. However, although the facts can be externally sourced and therefore included, there would be next to no possible way to state the conclusion as I know of no source which explicitly states it and therefore it would be considered original and therefore not admissible. (The admissibility rules for material in Wikipedia are extremely good and valuable, but it can make it hard to find a permissible way to state results at times. I'll see what reputable sources I can find that help explain the type of occupation in Mellor.) Jcday (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the problem, but working within policies makes a good article and the original research has to be left to the academics I'm afraid. As for "vanilla hillfort", well their nature and purpose is often debated, not just Mellor's. They were no doubt a focus for the elites across Britain, as demonstrated by the high value finds at Mellor and that building the huge defences would have taken a lot of effort and needed some organisation. Archaeologist Barry Cunliffe believes that hillforts were not solely defensive and had a social role. Places such as Danebury and Maiden Castle appear to have been intensively inhabited, but we can't be sure what Mellor was like as hillforts probably come rein a variety of flavours, some probably more military than others. Nev1 (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I quite agree with the Wikimedia's policy on original research. Iron Age at Mellor covers the issue of whether this was a hillfort or not, and in the piece I originally wrote, I was going by the argument offered there. Incidentally, congratulations to you (and all other recent collaborators) on refocussing the article and getting it to GA standards. That's a damn fine piece of work, especially given what you had to start with. We'll need to figure out at some point what to do about all the rest of the history being dug up, but that's for another day. Just to reassure you, I've no intent on risking this article's high standing by contributing to it - at least not until my writing has improved to the required degree. It makes more sense for right now for me to use the discussion page to note anything that might be missing or any new published findings and leave it to superior writers/editors to see if it's suitable for folding in and how. On that note, how helpful would it be for me to scour for publications not otherwise listed in the article, and would it make more sense to look for articles that offer information not present in the current piece, or articles which act as cites for substantiating what is already there? Jcday (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
See the discussion on the roundhouse below for additional cites on the work. Jcday (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
First, major congratulations on getting to GA status! That is very impressive. Is it ok, though, if I can't get comfortable with the consolidated nature? I'd rather it be a good article than tailored to suit my comfort levels, though. Second, I'm going to suggest some material that might be worth working in somehow. The importance of the Mellor Pot is high, so I'll start with [1] as a source of good material on that. The excavation itself is not described in the article - [2] is a very large photo-archive of everything done on the site. The University of Manchester Archaeological Unit reports are posted here [3] for the most part, but a few links are broken. I'll see if I can get the remainder of the emailed to me. Jcday (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mellor hill fort/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewing.Pyrotec (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


### Initial comments
An interesting article, and I recognise some of the text from Danebury.

I thought it needed a background section, and most of the work had already been done for Danebury. I cannibalised a bit and tried to rephrase what I could as the hill fort article is in a dreadful state. Nev1 (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Naturally I checked the topic out at Current Archaeology and came across Mellor Archeological Trust (and went to their website). After about the second reading of the article I spotted the External links section and the link to "Mellor Heritage Project", which turned out to be Mellor Archeological Trust.

I've made a note on the external link that the site is run by Mellor Archaeological Trust as they seem to use it as their own website. Nev1 (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
There are two websites currently actively tracking development of Mellor archaeology - the Mellor Heritage Project/Archaeological website, and Timeslip-Mellor. The latter covers the geophysical surveys and the amber find. Jcday (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Coments:

The statement that 'Mellor is the only hill fort in Greater Manchester' aught to have a citation.
Quite right, citation added. Nev1 (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
There is also a nice picture in the article of a (modern) replica roundhouse; but its not mentioned in the article; and Mellor Archeological Trust (on their website) refer to a 2006 excavation report that has not yet been published (at least on their website).
The reconstructed roundhouse has been mentioned. As for the 2006 report, I've no idea where it is; Manchester University's archaeology department website doesn't help. Nev1 (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The University of Manchester's archaeology department isn't actually involved in the dig. The archaeologists are from the University of Manchester, but their academic concerns are more to do with the archaeological surveys required for urban development. I forget exactly which department they're attached to. It is extremely confusing. The reconstructed roundhouse was originally performed as a school project by Ridge Danyers College (now known as Cheadle and Marple Sixth Form College) and was originally intended to stand for only two years. Jcday (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Forgot to list cites for the roundhouse. DIY The Iron Age Way (I'm guessing the piece was written on a word processor, then pasted in without the necessary markup.) Room With A Phew by the Manchester Evening News. A light-hearted look at the work. Summary of Work Done covers the construction work, some of the details behind the project, and has photos from the construction phase. The teaching materials link seems to be broken.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcday (talk • contribs) 23:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I read the following paragraph as being entirely in the past, i.e.  "the archaeological excavations that have been undertaken since 1998 have been funded by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council and grants from the Heritage Lottery Fund, and have received news coverage. The site has been used as a training excavation for students and a community dig to introduce people to history, with the participation of Mellor Archaeological Trust.[9] Many of the artefacts discovered at Mellor during the excavations are on on permanent display at Stockport Museum".
I suggest that the article is slightly expanded to remove the implication that all the archaeology on this site is finished and done.
Sorry about that, I was trying to be too clever for my own good by using the imperfect tense. I've changed it to present and have added a note about the open days. Nev1 (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Pyrotec (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


### main review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

The article has been much improved overnight, so I'm awarding GA status. Congratulations on the quality of the article.Pyrotec (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mellor hill fort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090924084928/http://www.mellorheritage.org.uk:80/General/Administration/page_142.php to http://www.mellorheritage.org.uk/General/Administration/page_142.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080905144756/http://www.mellorheritage.org.uk/General/Background/Mellor_Archaeological_Trust/page_45.php to http://www.mellorheritage.org.uk/General/Background/Mellor_Archaeological_Trust/page_45.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)