# Talk:Hillforts in Scotland

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hillforts in Scotland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) 18:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll review this in the next few days. Jamesx12345 18:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on.--SabreBD (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The scope of this article is somewhat fragmented across Hillforts in Britain and List of hill forts in Scotland. I think if the former was moved to Hillforts in England and the latter merged into this article there would be an improvement in terms of navigability.
A bit out of the scope of the review. I think having a separate list does stop this article getting out of hand and both separate lists and British and Scottish articles on a topic are a common format.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I am happy to accept there being a separate list, but there is no point in working on this article (from your perspective) if it is to be the subject of a merge discussion in a short time. Moving Hillforts in Britain to Hillforts in England and not leaving a redirect would make more sense to me. I won't push the issue any further, because as you say it is not necessary for the purposes of this review. Jamesx12345 15:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The intro needs a bit of copy-editing. Links to hill fort and Scotland, as well as some mention of when and by whom they were built. The history of study is less important, I think, and could make its own separate section. Jamesx12345 15:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Hillfort is linked in the first instance outside of the bold title. Scotland is not usually linked as it is a common geographical term.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
"introduced" - were they from somewhere else? I can't think of a better word.
I cannot either at the moment. Perhaps I will come back to that one.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
"Clyde-Forth line..." - southern Scotland would be clearer.
It is easier to understand, but not as precise. This is the term used time and again in the literature, but if you insist I will change it.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Lots of "largest, mostly, most, many, some" - potentially weasel words.
Any alternative suggestions? We are dealing with a lot of uncertainties here.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The refs are all books, so harvnb would look a lot nicer (IMHO.) That said, there is some variety that would be best gotten rid of in how refs are implemented. Jamesx12345 15:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
"with a close relationship to Roman constructions" - I don't fully understand this in context. Does it mean those that have been used/ modified by Romans?
I added an explanation in parenthesis.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Paragraph 2 of Early studies could use a few more refs. If ref 2 covers everything, implementing it a few more times as per the previous paragraph would look better.
 Done.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Link Palisade
 Done.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
"can also be found" - redundant. More info would avoid having to say this.
 Done.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The section Classification and function seems to move beyond the scope of the title. A section on Construction might be possible.
Not sure what is wanted here. Do you want to get rid of this section?--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Jamesx12345 16:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


### Part II
Sorry for the delay in doing this. Jamesx12345 21:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

"some of which may have been a response to Roman siege warfare." - this could do with a ref.
Its Cuncliffe at the end of the next sentence.--SabreBD (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
"some seem to have" - "archaeological evidence suggests" (presumably) is less hedging.
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
"r. c." - is that similar to fl.? I can't say I've heard it used in this context before.
Its "reigned circa".--SabreBD (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The template is a great solution. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The format of the references appears to be consistent, but the bibliography is redundant. My preference when citing books is to use {{harvnb}}, but you might have something else.
This is my preferred compromise.--SabreBD (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

In Scottish archaeology (and British archaeology more generally), BC/AD is the common way to refer to dates before and after the (putative) birth of Jesus of Nazareth. 94.10.31.227 (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)