# Talk:White Horse Stone

This review is transcluded from Talk:White Horse Stone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 10:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Claiming this one now; review to follow later! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

"and a fourth possible example, the Coffin Stone" Well, the Coffin Stone isn't really a fourth possible example; it may have once been a part of a fourth example. Similar issue a few lines earlier; "If they were parts of a destroyed chambered long barrow, then the White Horse Stones would have been built" - the stones weren't built, the barrows were.
I've changed the first instance to "part of a fourth possible example"; the second I've changed to "If the White Hose Stones were originally components of chambered long barrows, then they would have been erected by pastoralist communities shortly after the introduction of agriculture to Britain from continental Europe." Do you think that this does the trick? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
"by various Folkish Heathen groups, namely the Odinic Rite" including, perhaps?
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
"The eastern group consists of Smythe's Megalith, Kit's Coty House, Little Kit's Coty House, the Coffin Stone, and several other stones which might have once been parts of chambered tombs, most notably the White Horse Stone." Again - referring to a stone as a barrow!
Good point. I've changed this sentence to "The eastern group consists of Smythe's Megalith, Kit's Coty House, and Little Kit's Coty House, while various stones on the eastern side of the river, most notably the Coffin Stone and White Horse Stone, may also have been parts of such structures." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
"was located in the northwest angle of the Pilgrims' Road and the Rochester-to-Maidstone road" Maybe this is my problem, but I don't know what this means
I believe it means that the stone existed in an area of land located inside just to the north-west where the Rochester-to-Maidstone road (now the A229, but then probably little more than a trackway) was bisected by the Pilgrims' Way. I'll try and make that clearer in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
"probably now under the dual carriageway." Which road, sorry?
Ah, the A229 - I only mention it on the second appearance so I've corrected that so that it is introduced (and Wikilinked) on the first mention. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
What does "calibrated BCE" mean?
It's the standard jargon with radiocarbon dating. I'll stick in a link to Radiocarbon dating#Reporting_dates. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
"In 1842, Douglas Allport included a woodcut of the Lower White Horse Stone in his book on the nearby town of Maidstone" Do we have this? It'd be a great addition to the article! (Or Post's sketch, but maybe the copyright situation would be trickier there...)
I've had a comparatively quick look through the usual sources (Google Books, Internet Archive etc) and they don't seem to have digitised versions of Allport's book, which is a shame. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
"in his 1927 work" What work?
That's a good point! I've added the title in (the wonderfully titled In Kentish Pilgrimland). Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Is it a scheduled monument? If so, this should be mentioned, and a category should be added.
Indeed it is. I've added both a sentence mentioning this and a category to the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Given the religious significance that the stone has to at least some people, I wonder if some categories related to neopaganism/heathenism would be appropriate? I also spotted Category:Kent folklore, Category:Myth of origins (or a subcategory) and Category:Religious buildings and structures in Kent.
I've added the "Kent folklore" and "Religious buildings and structures in Kent" categories as I think that those are definitely very appropriate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Very interesting. Great to have the the discussion of contemporary usage. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Images and sources all look fine, by the way! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on, Josh! I'll sort this all out later in the week. All the best. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks,  Josh. Let me know your thoughts on my changes when you get a chance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I've made some final changes - please double-check. I want to make sure the promoted version one you're happy with. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Those look fine to me. Thanks, Josh! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)