# Talk:Dunster Butter Cross

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dunster Butter Cross/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 17:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll read through and review properly tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on, however I feel I need to point out that if you make any comments between 3 April & 13 April I will not be able to respond to them until my return.— Rod talk 16:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem, I'll do the review and await your return. Have a good one! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Cheers - all looks good now! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; 

Personally I'd have kept the lead as just one para, as it is very short.
Merged into 1 para.— Rod talk 13:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
"and was moved to its current location on the edge of the village possibly in 1825..." I found this bit rather unclear. Could I suggest something like: "The Dunster Butter Cross was erected in the late 14th or early 15th century and originally stood in the High Street, possibly at the southern end of the high street, near the Yarn Market. It was moved to its current location on the edge of the village by Alcombe Road, although the date when this was done is unclear. The site where the cross now stands was leveled in 1776 by workman, paid by Henry Fownes Luttrell, and it may have been on this occasion that the cross was moved. An alternative local tradition is that it was moved in 1825, although a drawing by JMW Turner made in 1811 suggests it was in its present position by then."?
Revised per your suggestion.— Rod talk 13:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
"JMW Turner" - should be "J. M. W. Turner"
Done.— Rod talk 13:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
"The octagonal base and polygonal shaft remain, however the head of the cross has been lost." - I'd advise "The cross's octagonal base and polygonal shaft have survived, however the head of the cross has been lost."
Is the base the same as the socket stone or the plinth? I wasn't sure if some of these were the same thing (if so, can we use common language? If not, is it worth saying at the start of the paragraph "The cross comprises a shaft, socket stone, base and a plinth." or something like that? I also wasn't sure if the plinth was modern or original.
I've had a go at revising this. The socket stone (into which the base of the shaft fits) sits on the plinth and together they make up the base.— Rod talk 13:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
(c) it contains no original research.

I'm not sure if the citing on the paragraph beginning "Buttercrosses were common in English market towns and dating from medieval times..." is right. The information is correct, but I can't see it on the page linked to - the webpage only seems to support the last sentence; is it in one of the various downloadable docs?
This claim is per Buttercross and seems logical. I've never seen it challenged before but can't quickly find a citation to support this (? uncontroversial) claim.— Rod talk 13:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The bit that I think most needs the citation is the "common in English market towns"; my concern is, how common were they? The new VCH citation doesn't seem to support the content in the sentence "Their name originates from the fact...", although it would add addition information to the subsequent paragraph, supporting the 1820s date hypothesis. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'vbe removed the claim about them being "common" (although I know of several & 32 are listed on the NHLE) . The VCH ref does say "It was also known as the Butter Cross by 1689 indicating the commodities sold around it".— Rod talk 19:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure the link is right? When I click on it, http://www.victoriacountyhistory.ac.uk/explore/assets/dunster-market-buildings just says "Only the Yarn market and the width of High Street mark the site of the market place recorded from 1307 but now car parking. Formerly there was a cross, a shambles, a town hall and a tub house but all remaining market buildings, except the Yarn Market, were swept away in the 1820s as no longer needed and probably making access difficult for properties on the west side of the street." Hchc2009 (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
If you click on "download file" it opens a word document (for which I can't give a URL) written by Mary Siraut with more info on the buildings in the market. There is a section on the cross half way down page 1. The yarn market link is page 4.— Rod talk 20:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC) http://www.victoriacountyhistory.ac.uk/explore/sites/explore/files/explore_assets/2014/04/14/dunster_market_place_and_its_buildings.doc may take you to it directly.— Rod talk 20:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

There is only a limited amount of information available on this cross, so although the article is short, that is to be expected.
Worth taking a look at http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/butter-cross/history/. It gives a bit more details about what happened at these crosses, but also argues that "the broken shaft seems to date from the 15th century. If so, it was probably the last of several replacements." Hchc2009 (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I've used this to fix a broken ref link (EH & Historic England split). Do you think more is needed as we say "late 14th or early 15th century" as the date.— Rod talk 13:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

New but stable so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; 

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks fort your comments - some quick corrections made while waiting for flight - anything else will have to wait.— Rod talk 13:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


### minor point
Should the first line of the History section read: "Buttercrosses were common in English market towns and date from medieval times." Can't help with a citation, I'm afraid.  KJP1 (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - changed.— Rod talk 06:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


### Comment
It appears that there is some useful information here, which would allow you to expand the history section somewhat. —Noswall59 (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC).

Thanks very useful. I've added a sentence to history & it also supports the previously uncited claim re etymology.— Rod talk 15:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)