Talk:Maiden Castle, Dorset

message: The following is singularly unhelpful:
"The name maiden was once believed to derive from the Brythonic mai dun, meaning great hill. Recent work by Richard Coates (Maiden Castle, Geoffrey of Monmouth and Hārūn al-Rashīd, Nomina 29 (2006), 5-60) has made this theory obsolete."
This needs more explanation. Dewrad (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unhelpful 

message: Maiden Castle is a multivallate hillfort and as such has many banks and ditches - three main sets in my reckoning.
The greatest height of bank above a corresponding ditch is anything up to 40-50ft (12-15M).
Saying the earthworks are up to 6M high doesnt really describe anything.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.197.192 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stating that "The earthworks are up to 6 m high" is pretty meaningless 

message: The article states that the fort originally enclosed 67.4 ha and then later was tripled in area to enclose 19 ha.  19 ha is considerably less than one third of 67.4.... is this a decimal place error? (i.e. - was the original enclosure 6.74 ha?) DavisGL (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for picking up on that, it was meant to be 6.4 ha rather than 67.4. A clumsy typo I'm afraid, but the other figures in the article say 6.4. Nev1 (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much area? 

message: Apparently, Credenhill fort covers 'nearly' 50 acres or 'over 20ha', according to this site: http://www.smr.herefordshire.gov.uk/news_events2/credenhill_hillfortinfo.htm  Markb (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what criteria have been used when deciding that Maiden Castle is the largest hill fort in Britain, so I have included several citations in the article to the effect that the claim is not spurious and is at least verifiable. Whether it's true is another matter, one I'll leave to the professional archaeologists. Nev1 (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

text: They may measure they largest hill fort by total size, not just enclosure, as this source says that including Maiden Castle's defences it measured , but it also says the enclosed area is  so isn't the most accurate source. Nev1 (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  not the largest iron age fort in England? 

message: While looking for sources online about Maiden Castle, I came across this very interesting news story about a mass grave uncovered near the hillfort. The interesting bit is that some of it sounds very familiar, I think there's some copying going on here. Compare:
from wikipedia's article with the following extract from the article:
The bolded text appears verbatim in wikipedia's article. Potential copyright violation and something that means the article here needs to be rewritten? Not quite. The Daily Mail article the second extract is from was published on the 11th June 2009. I added the first extract to wikipedia's article on 29th May 2009 (albeit I misspelt wreaked the first time, and it would have been much funnier if my typo had been copied too).
Journalists getting their info from wikipedia is lazy, at least check your sources, but at least they picked a sourced article to copy from. But there's a mistake in the Daily Mail article! The "war cemetery" is inside the castle's eastern gateway, rather than near the castle. It's even stated in the same paragraph! Now not even being bother to read that properly is really lazy. I don't think I'll be using the Daily Mail's account of the discovery in this article, wikipedia has a reputation to think of :-P Nev1 (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh boy, I just read the rest of the Daily Mail's article, it looks like pretty much all the background information about the hillfort as opposed to the discovery of the burial is lifted from wikipedia. Nev1 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did leave a comment regarding their 'research' at wikipedia and the fact that you must be really excited that all your hard work has finally come to fruition in a mainstream newspaper, but for some reason the moderators of the site don't seem to want to include it. Strange that. --WebHamster 19:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. I took a look at the Reuters press release and Maiden Castle is only mentioned in passing. The discovery doesn't seem to have any bearing on the hill fort, so unless this story develops I don't think it's worth more than a short sentence at most. Possibly no mention at all. Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A cool thing...

message: I have so far been unable to find a good estimate of the population of Maiden Castle and the most authoritative book on the subject (Niall Sharples' English Heritage Book of Maiden Castle) is silent on the subject. This source mentions that Moreau in Die Welt der Kelten gives an estimate of about 4,000 but Moreau was writing in 1958, long before the second excavations at Maiden Castle and Barry Cunliffe's excavations at Danebury. Sharples states that the inhabitation of Maiden Castle was probably similar to Danebury, and Cunliffe has been able to give a rough estimate for the population of the hill fort. This is possible at Danebury because such a large proportion of the site has been excavated, and it would be original research on my part too extrapolate a population for Maiden Castle and academically flawed as developed hill forts were no doubt were diverse in form, size, and purpose, so the population density was probably not uniform. I'm leaving this note here for any inquisitive readers who want an explanation for why the article is mute on the number of people who lived at Maiden Castle. Nev1 (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Population estimates

message: Amandajm (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well deserved FA! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I love articles like these. :) Jason Parise (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well done! Kyle1278 23:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I live within 20 miles of Maiden Castle, I haven't visited for at least 30 years, largely because I remember it is being little more than 'a few mounds'.  Since then I've grown up a bit and this incredibly well developed article has given me a reason to go back, this time with a greater understanding of where those mounds came from.  Well done all concerned and may I add my congratulations for a well deserved front page feature.  Terry C (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow Nev!  Can't say fairer than that!  You've managed to get someone interested in these old midden heaps ;-) Skinsmoke (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No no, this one's a Maiden heap ;-) Nev1 (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The main point of this article was to provide information on an interesting subject, and if it prompts some people to take an interest that's fantastic and shows the potential of wikipedia. I agree that you can't grasp the full scale of the site from the ground (I like the images in the article, but they are slightly underwhelming), but there's a great image here (second one down) which gives a great aerial view. Ignore the article the photo's in though, it's mostly copied from wikipedia and what isn't is pretty rubbish. Nev1 (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations!

message: Great article.  Any chance of a plan of the hillfort with scale and relevant areas mentioned in the text marked? 86.142.104.78 (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A plan would be very useful (and for anyone researching the site, English Heritage Book of Maiden Castle by Sharples in 1991 has lots of useful plans) but they are not free to use. To obtain a free-use one, it would have to be redrawn. The plan is rather complex with lots of detail, and I wouldn't be keen on asking someone else to go to the hassle of redrawing it (unfortunately I don't have the skill to do it myself; I can just about manage contrast and brightness in Photoshop!). I had hoped that an aerial image would suffice, and some will become available in 2010, but in the meantime I hope that the description is clear enough for a reader to get an idea of the site (although I admit that nothing can quite replace a plan). If you, or anyone else for that matter, think it's really essential, I could make enquiries at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop and see if anyone can help. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plan?