Talk:Addington Long Barrow

message: : I'll add notes here; I'll also copyedit as I go -- please revert anything you disagree with.
* Can we refer to it as "the barrow" rather than "the long barrow" once we've established that it's a long barrow, for brevity?
:*It's certainly possible but actually I think there are reasons to stick with "the long barrow." First, I think that that helps to underscore the point that this is a long barrow (which are Early Neolithic) as opposed to a round barrow (which are Bronze Age, then Romano-British, then early medieval) and just helps prevent any confusion. Second, referring to "the barrow" in this context could be read as being a reference only of the earthen tumulus and not the stone chamber. Thus, using "long barrow" makes it clear that we are referring to the entirety of the monument, rather than just one part of it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *"Roughly rectangular"? "Largely rectangular"? We could just go with "rectangular" but that would imply it was a perfectly balanced shape (which it isn't). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

text: *"once formed" looks pretty good. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

text: *I've gone with wording that we presently use in the Coldrum Long Barrow article: "Probably constructed in the fourth millennium BCE, during Britain's Early Neolithic period," Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

text: *Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

text: *I have now done so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Your changes look good, except for the link for "fourth millennium BCE", which I've just corrected, assuming it was a typo.  OK on the points you didn't change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

text: *I think your proposed wording works; I've incorporated it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

text: *I have no particular objection to its inclusion, although I wonder where we might place it. There is already quite a few images in the article and I don't think we want it to end up looking too cluttered. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

text: *That works. I'll make the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

text: *A false portal is an architectural element that looks like it should be a doorway but actually isn't. A "false doorway" would perhaps be a clearer term but "false portal" is more standard in the literature. I'll add something to make this clearer in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

text: *More than happy to specify that the image is facing west. I'll add that into the article now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

text: *Regarding the plan, I have no intrinsic opposition to it being flipped so that north points up, although in its current form that would mean that the actual title of the image would be aligning wrongly. I intend to re-do this plan, as my original one is pretty shoddy, so I could ensure that the replacement is north facing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Thanks again for offering up these notes! Apologies for how long it took me to get around to acting upon them; I wasn't very active on Wikipedia last month and when I was I tended to get distracted by other things. Hope you're keeping well amid the lockdown. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No hurry.  Your changes all look good.  I'll have another read through at some point.  If you're planning to take this to FAC, I'll make sure I read through before you do, if you like. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: Had time today to read through, so here are some more notes.
* Suggest piping "stone-fruit trees" to Amygdaloideae and getting rid of the species name in the main text; it won't help most readers.
* The discussion starting "Based on a stylistic analysis" cites several archaeologists; to avoid saying "archaeologist Stuart Pigott...archaeologist Glyn Daniel...archaeologist John H. Evans...archaeologist Ronald F. Jessup" you could start with something like "Archaeologists have proposed several hypotheses for influences on the plan of the Medway Megaliths."  Then all the subsequent opinions can be assumed to be from archaeologists.
* How about a link for Cotswold-Severn group?  A redlink would be good if no article exists yet.
* : "knew" and "had" don't work together; I'd make it either "whether they knew of the oak tree mentioned by Harris, but none did" or "whether they had heard of the oak tree mentioned by Harris, but none had".
The only other comment is that I still think the section on the Medway Megaliths is too long for appropriate summary style.  Other than that and the minor points above I think this is ready for FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  More notes