# Talk:Parc Cwm long cairn

As requested, I'm looking at this article to see if I, a complete archeological ignoramus, can understand it, before it goes to FAC. I'll organise my comments section by section below. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead
"... identified in 1937 as one of the Severn-Cotswold type of chambered long barrow." Is there some technical reason why this isn't "chambered long barrows". "One of the ... chambered long barrow" jars a bit.
There are many chambered long barrows that are not of the Severn-Cotswold type. However, there is only one type of Severn-Cotswold chambered long barrow (although it is now known as a Severn-Cotswold type of chambered tomb). How is it best described?
What about "... identified in 1937 as a Severn-Cotswold type of chambered long barrow"? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Sounds much better. Daicaregos (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
"A trapezoidal cairn of rubble – the upper part of the cromlech and its earth covering now removed". I don't quite follow this. Is it saying that the cromlech would have had an upper part (now removed) and that it would in turn have been covered by earth?  Or is the trapezoidal cairn of rubble the upper part of the cromlech, now removed. Colour me confused!
The upper part of the cromlech, including the capstone(s), has not survived (I suspect that the workmen digging for roadstone managed to find quite a lot) nor has its earth covering, which would covered the capstone(s). Daicaregos (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
"The cromlech was rediscovered in 1869 ...". When was it first discovered?
Quite right - 1869. rediscovered → discovered 1, 2  Done Daicaregos (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
History
"The post glacial rise in sea level separated Wales and Ireland – forming the Irish Sea – Doggerland was submerged by the North Sea and, by 8000 BP, the British Peninsula became an island." This doesn't work for me, seems to be trying to day too much. If you miss out the bit between the dashes it reads "The post glacial rise in sea level separated Wales and Ireland Doggerland was submerged by the North Sea and, by 8000 BP, the British Peninsula became an island", which doesn't really make sense. I don't want to try and rewrite it myself though because of all the citations.
Would "The post glacial rise in sea level separated Wales and Ireland (forming the Irish Sea), Doggerland was submerged by the North Sea and, by 8000 BP, the British Peninsula became an island." work better? Or is there still too much information for one sentence? Daicaregos (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to split the sentence: "The post glacial rise in sea level separated Wales and Ireland, forming the Irish Sea. Doggerland was submerged by the North Sea, and by 8000 BP the British Peninsula had become an island." --Malleus Fatuorum 15:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
[1]  Done Daicaregos (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
"... common over Atlantic Europe". Sounds strange. Would "common across ..." not be better?
Yes it would. Daicaregos (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
[2]  Done Daicaregos (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
"However, in his contribution to 'History of Wales, 25,000 BC AD 2000' ...". Is that a book? If so it should be in italics. If it's a paper, then it should be using the normal double quotes.
It is a book. Daicaregos (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
"However, in his contribution to 'History of Wales, 25,000 BC AD 2000', archaeologist Stephen Aldhouse-Green notes that not all Neolithic communities were part of the simultaneous "marked transformations in material culture, ideology and technical practices" – known as the "Neolithic Revolution". In general I think there's a little too liberal use of ndashes in this section, where they don't really work, as here; a comma would be better. Why is "Neolithic Revolution" in italics?
I'll make the ndash to comma changes. Neolithic Revolution is in italics as it is a defined term. Daicaregos (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
[3] (ndash → commas)  Done Daicaregos (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "defined term" in this context, and I note you've done the same thing with Severn-Cotswold or Cotswold-Severn group. Can you direct me to the section of MoS that discusses using italics for "defined terms"?
Per MOS:ITALIC#Emphasis: "Italics may also be used where, in the course of using a term in an article, that term is being defined, introduced or distinguished in meaning." Have I misunderstood it? Daicaregos (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe that you have misunderstood it, as you're not talking about the term "Neolithic Revolution", you're just using it. It take the MoS to be saying that italics (or quotes) are appropriate in the case where you'e actually talking about that term, although I guess the of the word "introduced" is ambiguous. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Curses! I only found it yesterday & changed them all. Oh well. Daicaregos (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you think "... by the former landmass known as Doggerland, ..." is correct within a sentence beginning "At that time ... " i.e. would it have been a former landmass at that time? Daicaregos (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The more I look at that sentence the less I like it: "At that time the European mainland and the area that would become the island of Great Britain were connected – between the east coast of present day England and the coasts of present day Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands – by the former landmass known as Doggerland, forming a British Peninsula".
What about something simpler, like this: "At that time a landmass known as Doggerland connected the east coast of present day England and the coasts of modern Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands, forming a British peninsula."
Yes, noting Great Britain as a proto-island is redundant, as "the post-glacial rise ..." mentions it later. I do think though, that it is such a novel concept for many people, that it should be spelt out as much as possible. Perhaps: "At that time sea levels were much lower than today. The shallower parts of what is now the North Sea were dry land. The east coast of present day England and the coasts of present day Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands were connected by the former landmass known as Doggerland, forming a British Peninsula." Daicaregos (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
That works for me. I'd joint the first two sentences though, as in "At that time sea levels were much lower than today, and the shallower parts of what is now the North Sea were dry land."
I added "... forming a British Peninsula on the European mainland." Is that correct? Daicaregos (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
That seems fine to me, except shouldn't it be "British peninsula", without the capital "P"? Unless "British Peninsula" was its name of course, in which case the sentence ought to say "forming the British Peninsula. Something's not quite right anyway.
The University of Exeter have it as "the British Peninsula", Doggerland as "the British peninsula". [4]  Done Daicaregos (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
"Great Britain became covered in dense forest ...". Great Britain didn't exist then.
It is used as the name of the island, rather than the state. Should it be Wikilinked? Daicaregos (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it should, just to be clear, so I've added it. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Severn-Cotswold tombs
I have a slight concern over the list of common characteristics that begins "... cairns in the Severn-Cotswold tradition share several characteristics". The list is all of nouns (wedge shape, cairn, capstones, chambers) except for "revetted", which seems jarring. Could this not be slightly rewritten to list "revettments" instead, for instance?
That would work. Daicaregos (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
[5]  Done Daicaregos (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Features
"No capstone has been recorded". Seems strange to use the word "recorded" here. Discovered?
It is highly likely that the 'workmen digging for roadstone' discovered the capstone, broke it up and used it (virtually all Severn-Cotswold type chambered tombs have capstones), before bringing the unusual site to the attention of the the landowner - who subsequently excavated it. However, I haven't found a source speculating what happened to it. They may think it implicit. 'Recorded' is accurate (and cited - coflein use 'recorded'). 'Discovered' may not be. If it is confusing, how about "No capstone now exists."?  Daicaregos (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah. In that case then how about "There is no record of a capstone having been discovered"?
[6]  Done Daicaregos (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I commented above that this article is almost certainly overusing ndashes, in an effort to cram as much as possible into each sentence, and this sentence is a good example of where they also look awkward: "A straight central passageway (or gallery) – 21 feet (6 m) long by 3 feet (1 m) wide, orientated north–south – leads from the forecourt ...". The last two ndashes are just too close for visual comfort.
[7]  Done Daicaregos (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Images
The alt text isn't displaying for the image in the infobox.
[8]  Done Daicaregos (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Still not working for me. What's showing up as the alt text is " Parc le Breos, Gwyr o'r dwyrain.JPG", the text against the Photo parameter.
I think that means that the infobox isn't equipped to use alt text. Nev1 (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like you're right. If it's not protected I may add that myself. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed the infobox template, so all of the alt text is displaying now. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I'd assumed that as it wasn't working on the template, it wasn't necessary. Daicaregos (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I can tell you haven't yet visited FAC; they'd never buy that there. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Excavation
I removed the "see below" comment, as we shouldn't be making assumptions about the technology readers will using to view this page, and what affect that may or may not have on layout.
There are six citations at the end of the first paragraph. That'll likely raise some eyebrows, so probably best to merge them into one.
[9]  Done Daicaregos (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
"A detailed report of the excavation (of which, "minimal" records were made and no report published) was published in 1998 by Whittle and Wysocki ...". This is apparently contradictory; the unpublished report was published? I guess you mean though that no report was published at the time? What about "Minimal records were made of the excavation, and no report was published until Whittle and Wysocki's detailed account in 1998"?
[10]  Done Daicaregos (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Analysis
"Skeletal remains from the passageway were part articulated ...". This either needs a hyphen "part-articulated", or rephrasing as "partially articulated".
[11]  Done Daicaregos (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The bulleted list at the end of this section would be better just written as prose, which it pretty much is anyway. Not sure what the bullets are meant to add.
Bullet points removed. [12]  Done Daicaregos (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The 3 bullet pointed items identified how the conclusion of a continued hunter-gatherer lifestyle was reached, which was significant (in terms of redefing the Neolithic Revolution). I'm not sure that moving to a narrative format mantains that emphasis (which obviously wasn't clear enough anyway). I'm leaning towards creating a subsection, with a brief introduction, the 3 paragraphs on musculoskeletal, stable isotope and dental analyses and ending with the conclusion. What do you think? Daicaregos (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. Apart from the fact I didn't get the point of it, it didn't work technically anyway, as the images removed the indentation that's supposed to be there. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll give it a go, then. A technical question: You changed "Human tooth remains were analysed for ..." to "Human teeth remains were analysed for ...". Had the analysis been carried out on bones, for example, would one say "Human bones remains were analysed for ... "? Daicaregos (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually on reflection I wouldn't say either, both seen rather clumsy. I changed it because I assumed that the remains of more than one tooth had been examined, but looking at it again now I'd probably be inclined to say something like "Remains of human teeth ...". --Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Which explains how you have getting on 2 dozen WP:FAs (plus who knows how many assists). Nice one. Daicaregos (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
[13] Daicaregos (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
[14] Added Lifestyle analysis subsection + conclusion.  Done Daicaregos (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
" Decay implies either periods of food shortage, or a diet consisting of higher proportions of carbohydrate or softer cooked meat ...". Higher proportions than what? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
higher → high [15]  Done Daicaregos (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Llethryd Tooth Cave
"... and animal bones – the remains of domesticated animals, cat and dog". This isn't clear to me. Were the remains of cats and dogs, or were they of domesticated animals including cats and dogs? Or was it the remains of a single cat and a single dog? Or something else?
Found it. Whittle & Wysocki (p.177) say (of the Tooth Hole cave): "The disarticulated and clearly manipulated remains of six individuals were accompanied by bones from domesticated species and cat, dog and puppy, finding an echo in the human and faunal remains recovered from the passage at Parc Cwm." Sadly, the "domesticated species" are not defined. Daicaregos (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
[16] "... the remains of domesticated animals, cat and dog." → "... the remains of domesticated animals, including cat and dog."  Done  Daicaregos (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Cathole Cave
"She was rediscovered in a cave between Port Eynon and Rhossili ...". When was she first discovered?
Quite right. [17]  Done Daicaregos (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
"... the oldest known human burial in Great Britain". I'm no expert, but I think the term "Great Britain" is a relatively modern one, and can sometimes lead to arguments.
As per above, it is used as the name of the island, rather than the state. Should Great Britain be Wikilinked? Daicaregos (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
"... which are yet to be accurately dated". Best to date this, as in "yet to be dated as of 2010".
[18] Recast sentence.  Done Daicaregos (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Location
I'm not sure I understand the logic of which names are italicised, here and in other parts of the article. For instance, what's the difference between "... pony trekking (horse riding) centre called Parc le Breos" and "Coed y Parc" that means one should be in italics but the other not?
Good point. They are all proper nouns and should not be italicized. [19] (ignoring moving sentences).  Done
"Parc Cwm long cairn is in Coed y Parc, Parc le Breos, midway between the villages of Llanrhidian and Bishopston (Llandeilo Ferwallt) – north west to south east – and Ilston (Llanilltud Gŵyr) and Nicholaston – north east to south west – about one mile (1.5 km) north west of the village of Parkmill, a small rural settlement on the Gower Peninsula." That's just far too long and convoluted. If all this detail is really needed can it not be simplified in some way?
[20] Section recast.  Done
"Parkmill is about eight miles (13 km) west of Swansea, South Wales and less than 1+1⁄4 miles (2 km) from the south coast of the Gower Peninsula." Why should the reader be concerned about Parkmill?
No reason. [21] Amended as part of section recast above.  Done
References
The page numbering needs to be checked for each. For some you've used "pp" where only a single page is being cited. Should be "p", of course.
You really need to separate the footnotes from the sources, to avoid having to duplicate source information and make it easier to find things. I'll do the Morgan one as an example to show you what I mean.
I notice that Morgan is the editor of that book. Are the contributions within it not individually attributed? If so, the author of the chapter you're quoting from should be named, along with the chapter title.
Had a crack at adding authors per chapter. But I think I'll need help to distinguish them in the citations, per harvard style. Pages 11-16 (Chapter 1, sections 1 & 2) were written by Aldhouse-Green, Pages 17-25 (Chapter 1, section 3) was written by Pollard. Daicaregos (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Are Morgan and Aldhouse-Green joint editors of that book? Only Morgan seems to be attributed on the cover ... anyway, I wouldn't bother about the detailed sections or section titles, just give the page numbers for the chapter that Pollard wrote, for instance. All we're trying to do in the bibliography is give the details of Pollard's contribution to the book, not point the reader to a particular part of the contribution; that the job of the Harvard-style citation of course. I find the {{citation}} template much easier to use than {{cite book}}, so I've added an alternative representation using that template to the end of the Bibliography that you can either use for the rest or discard as you like, but it shows what's required. BTW, are 17–25 the page numbers for the chapter or just the section?. Does each chapter have different authors for each section? In any event, what needs to go in the "pages=" parameter is the page range of Pollard's contribution, and if he didn't write the whole chapter, just one section, then "contribution=" needs to be changed to reflect that. All seems quite complicated when I write it down ... :-( --Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Complicated? Surely not. Morgan is the book's editor. Aldhouse-Green is the editor of chapter 1. He also wrote the first 2 sections. Pollard wrote section 3. And, as a BTW, Miranda Aldhouse-Green (Stephen's (ex?)wife) wrote section 4. Daicaregos (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
In that case I suggest we list both Morgan and Aldhouse-Green as editors for chapter 1. What we want to be able to do is to identify the editors/authors of each contribution but attribute it to the author, not the editor (obviously). I've updated my example at the end of the Bibliography to show what I mean. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. My only question is how do you link to it from the inline citation? Daicaregos (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The inline citation would just be {{<ref>{{Harvnb|Pollard|1998|p=#}}</ref>, or "pp=#–#" for a page range. Am I misunderstanding the question? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
No, but I think I had managed to confuse myself. We'll see when I try to link the 'Welsh Encyclopaedia'. Daicaregos (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
That was cruel! Of course Pollard is 2001, but I cut and pasted your example, which had 1998. A hefalump trap? Daicaregos (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Just seeing if you were paying attention. ;-) Actually I confused the year with that of Whittle & Wysocki's, which I'd been changing earlier, so my mistake. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the way dates are presented in the citations may provoke some comment at FAC. Using ISO-style dates for accessdates will be be OK, but not for the general dates as in #4. There weren't that many, so I've gone through and changed them all. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


### General queries
[22]: although it is correct to say "Human remains had been placed in the two pairs of stone chambers that led from the passageway.", they still do, as the passageway and the chambers are remain in situ. Consequently, the previous edition: "Human remains had been placed in the two pairs of stone chambers that lead from the passageway." Probably best for the previous version to be reinstated. Daicaregos (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC) 

That's a fair point, I've changed it back to "lead" on that basis. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
[23]: "disturbed by repeated access or subsequent interments" needs to be after "were initially thought to be" because it is another of Lubbock & Vivian's erroneous assumptions. The bones had been deliberately ordered, rather than jumbled up through disturbance. Daicaregos (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC) 

I've rewritten that as per your explanation. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
[24]: The sentence should be specific about the date of finds. Perhaps adding "contempoary", to read:  "Other contempoary finds, now held at the Amgueddfa Cymru–National Museum Wales, Cardiff, include ..." Daicaregos (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be clearer, I agree. Added the word "contemporary". --Malleus Fatuorum 15:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
[25]: Turns out she wasn't a lady (or a Romano-British prostitute) after all, but the name "Red Lady of Paviland" stuck. Perhaps it should say "The 'lady' ... " in place of 'She'. Daicaregos (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I've changed "she" to "the 'lady'". --Malleus Fatuorum 15:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

An editor (@Doug Weller:) has created Cathole Cave (it was previously a redirect to this article), by copying the relevant section from this article.  I suggest that the section here needs to be substantially reduced, so we don't have two parallel copies of the same text, but as this is a GA I'd hesitate to reduce the section myself. I've added the required statement about copying to the talk pages of both articles.  PamD 12:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to create a talk page, etc. after lunch but as you probably noticed I noted in my edit summary that I was copying material from this article. We should follow WP:Summary here, and I was going to do that also, but I hadn't noticed that it was a GA so if someone else would prefer to do it that's fine. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
This is, by the way, a by-product of my work on Draft:Navbox prehistoric caves. Doug Weller talk 12:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)