# Talk:Danebury

I'm not going to review the article officially, but I just wanted to point out that I noticed the article relies almost entirely on Cunliffe (1983).  I haven't tagged the article with {{onesource}} because I'm not familiar with this field and maybe that is the only good source out there...but for GA purposes, you might want to look for some more sources to mix in. —Politizer talk/contribs 17:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Was it 100BC or 100AD? Article inconsistent.JMcC (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Please start new discussion threads at the bottom of the talk page in future.
I'm not seeing anything in the article suggesting 100AD. WaggersTALK 11:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
I think the '100AD' in the 'Hillfort' section was likely a typo. 100BC is when the main settlement ended, but greatly reduced activity in the site. From Cunliffe 1983:
The late phase of Danebury came to an end about 100BC when the gate was burned, groups of bodies were thrown into charnel pits and most of the population departed from the protection of the defences. ... The aftermath saw Danebury still in use but compared with the intensity of occupation in the previous centuries the scene now would have looked very different. There were no gates, just a deeply worn road ... Some sort of community lived close by but the streets were deserted, the granaries decayed and gone ... By the beginning of the first century AD the settlement, probably nothing more than a single farm, had moved from the centre of the fort to occupy a more sheltered position ... where it was to last for a few more decades before dying
So I think a bit of nuance might need to be added to the article.
Additionally I've trimmed the sentence about the increasing importance of the site until its abandonment. The development of the hillfort into a multivallate complex indicates it was important, and the cited page range talked about its relationship with the surrounding area and role as a central place, but I'm not sure it explicitly meant it was a linear progression as indicated in the Wikipedia article. To be on the safe side I took that bit out, though Daenbury's importance as a central place is mentioned elsewhere in the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Danebury/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Starting GA review.Pyrotec (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


### Initial review
This article is a clear readable exposition on the Danebury hill fort; and it is well illustrated.
At this point I'm putting the article On hold. The article is based on a single source, i.e. Cunliffe's 1983 write up of his excavations from 1969-78. That itself is not necessarily sufficient a reason to fail the article; however, the source is now some 25 years old and its conclusions may not necessary fully reflect current thinking. I would like to establish whether the conclusions reached by Cunliffe 25 years ago have changed; and if so, some discussion of what these changes are (were) should appear in the article.
If they cannot be found in the next week, I'll award GA status; otherwise, I'll be looking for an update.Pyrotec (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


### Review
The article is quite readable and well illustrated; and has the makings of a GA, but I don't consider that it is currently at GA standard.
There is some doubt about the current validity/accuracy of the information given in the article and the scope of the article, which is based on a single source. For example, reliable sources (Cunliffe) state that excavation extended over 20 seasons: 1969-88 and that excavations of comparable sites continued from 1989-97; whereas the article states 1970s (WP:Lead) and 1969-78 (Investigation). As this article is based (wholly) on a book published in 1983 (and probably written 1981-2) it cannot realistically cover more than the first 50 % to 75 % of the excavation period.
As a way forward, English Heritage provide a pdf downloadable version of their monograph The Wessex Hillforts Project: Extensive survey of hillfort interiors in central southern England, by Andrew Payne, Mark Corney and Barry Cunliffe, (2006) at [1], which provides some information on Danebury (and comparable sites) and an extensive bibliography. I suggest, in the first instance, that the article is reviewed against Payne, Corney and Cunliffe (2006); and I will kept the article On Hold.Pyrotec (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice find, I had no idea English Heritage did full publications online. I'll take a look at the source and see if I can get the article up to scratch. Nev1 (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


### GA review
OK you can have your GA, but I think it would be useful to add information about the geophys, i.e. magnetometer, survey done in 1997, that is discussed in Payne, Corney and Cunliffe (2006) on pp 59-62 (and possibly elsewhere in that paper).Pyrotec (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A reasonable article, but based on a limited number of sources
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: 
Yes, but limited in number
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Consideration should be given to improving the scope of the article by including a discussion of the 1997 magnetometer survey.
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: 
A reasonable article that has scope for some improvement: particularly coverage of work carried out after the end of the 20-season excavations.Pyrotec (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I think there is some scope for slightly expanding the coverage of this site (see above), but I'm awarding GA at this point.Pyrotec (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Danebury. 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/20120310051853/http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=227448 to http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=227448
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140420033326/http://www.lnr.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/lnr/lnr_details.asp?C=0&N=danebury&ID=1737 to http://www.lnr.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/lnr/lnr_details.asp?C=0&N=danebury&ID=1737
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 00:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Danebury. 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/20080430040729/http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/ArchRev/rev95_6/danebury.htm to http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/ArchRev/rev95_6/danebury.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) 01:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)