# Talk:Stane Street

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Stane Street (Chichester). 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/20071016205542/http://www.chichester.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=1858 to http://www.chichester.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=1858
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120221224103/http://www.romansinsussex.co.uk/level3/search/detail.asp?maj_cat_search=communication&objectnumber=251 to http://www.romansinsussex.co.uk/level3/search/detail.asp?maj_cat_search=communication&objectnumber=251
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) 06:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stane Street (Chichester)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 13:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a solid article. I'll leave my comments soon. ♦ jaguar 13:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead
Per WP:LEADCITE citations are discouraged in the lead unless it's citing material that is challenged. I would recommend moving most of the citations to the body of the article as the information is repeated there
The lead summarises the article per WP:LEAD and it is well written, so I see no problems here
Surveying
I've done some minor formatting in the first sentence
"The steep gradients that would have been required if the road had followed a direct line, would not have been practical for wheeled traffic" - unnecessary comma between 'line' and 'would'
"...and so the Roman engineers designed the road to cross the North Downs by a natural breach cut by the River Mole and to pass to the east of the high ground of Leith Hill" - too many conjunctions in this long sentence. Would probably read better as , leading the Roman engineers to design the road to cross the North Downs by a natural breach cut by the River Mole and to pass to the east of the high ground of Leith Hill
Design and construction
"in a solid 30 cm thick mass" - convert to imperial too
Posting stations
"The site was enclosed by massive ramparts and ditches four metres wide" - 4 metres (13 ft) wide. Might also be worth linking rampart (fortification)
Route
"The northernmost section of Stane Street, from London Bridge to Ewell" - de-link Ewell as it has already been linked above
"The course of the road around Clapham Common is unclear" - Clapham Common is already linked in this section
"or followed a similar route to the A24 along the south side of the Common" - not sure if common needs to be capitalised here. Is this referring to Clapham Common or another common?
"...south side of the Common (which would have allowed it to remain on higher ground)." - I think this sentence would read better if you lose the brackets and insert a comma after 'Common'
"the road was approximately 14 m wide" - convert to feet or yards
"From the 1st to the 4th centuries AD" - in previous instances centuries are written out in prose (first and fourth centuries)
"the historian Ivan Margary proposed that from the Burford Bridge, the road headed directly for the town centre," - might flow better as the historian Ivan Margary proposed that the road headed directly for the town centre from the Burford Bridge,
"Based on the distance from Alfoldean (some 18.3 kilometres (11.4 mi) to the town centre)" - not sure why kilometres isn't abbreviated here
"there would be expected to be a mansio in the Dorking area" - there would be expected to have been mansio in the Dorking area?
"Belloc and Margary proposed that the mansio was located" - who is Belloc? He is introduced in the Historiography section which is at the end of the article
"failed to produce any significant finds of Roman origin, that might support the presence of either a posting station or even Stane Street itself in this area" - unnecessary comma between 'origin' and 'that'
"A large quantity of flints (which do not occur in the Weald clay) were found in the remaining core" - I would probably remove the brackets here
The Branch roads subsection has too many choppy sentences would benefit from merging them to improve flow
Decline and partial abandonment
"The extent to which the Anglo-Saxons used and maintained the route, reflects the changes in government and economic activity" - unnecessary comma between 'route' and 'reflects'
"north-south roads leading across the Weald" - not sure if Weald has been linked before, might be worth linking here
"Similarly, the 5-mile stretch of road" - 5 miles (8.0 km)
Historiography
"which WA Grant" - should his initials be formatted as 'W.A.'?
This is a well-written and comprehensive article. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I've made a few minor formatting edits, and most of my points above are mainly centred around minor issues like formatting or some instances of choppy sentences. I'll put this on hold until the points are clarified, otherwise this is very close to meeting the GA criteria.  On hold ♦ jaguar 13:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jaguar, thanks very much for reviewing the article so thoroughly and promptly. I have addressed all your concerns and have corrected a few additional typographical errors.

Please let me know if you have additional concerns. Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing them Mertbiol. This was a fascinating read. This article now meets the GA criteria and I'll be happy to see this promoted. Perhaps you might consider taking this one to FAC one day, it is very well-rounded.  ♦ jaguar 21:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This is useful info but I have no idea where to include a short summary
Recent aerial survey by Historic England for the Secrets of the High Woods Project (working in partnership with the South Downs National Park) has now firmly identified the remains of this Roman road, the existence of which has long been a subject for speculation. The discovery has depended on a combination of aerial photography and lidar (airborne laser scanning) data; the latter technique’s great strength is its potential to reveal sites in heavily-wooded areas.  https://historicengland.org.uk/whats-new/research/back-issues/lost-roman-road/ Peter K Burian (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Peter K Burian: the information you have linked to is about the Roman road which branched from Stane Street at Westhampnett. This is already mentioned in this article under Branch roads. If you wanted to expand coverage of this newly (re)discovered road on Wikipedia, the best thing to do would be to create a new article for it. It would not be appropriate to add any more detail to the Stane Street article. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)