Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 14:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great topic. Happy to offer a review, but it may take a little while. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem Josh; thanks for the offer! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's really very little I can say about the article at the moment, which is very good. Thus, I think any improvements are going to come from incorporating more sources.

• I see your ongoing discussion with Rod; some Googling threw up this book, which on page 406 identifies Porlock, Withypool and Amsworthy as three Exmoor stone circles. It does look like we have some scholarly disagreement, here, which is going to need to be explored in the article, I think.

• I could not get access to this book but I've included information on the putative circle from Almsworthy that I have obtained from Grinsell's book. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that there's a more recent discussion of the circle here; I think this would be a useful source to reference for at least five reasons:

1. It mentions that there are 29 stones; this seems to disagree with Burl. Perhaps you could introduce a degree of uncertainty into the article?
2. It places it in the useful context of the many standing stones of Exmoor.
3. It has details of the largest stone.
4. It has a few other references which may be worth chasing up and/or adding to a further reading.
5. Additional references may help with notability; I have no doubt that the site is notable, but I can envisage certain people demanding that the article be merged to a list or an article about the moor or something.

• I have added mention that Fowler reported 29 stones. Will aim to consult those additional two sources (the anon article and Grinsell's book) next week. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added information from the anonymous source and from Grinsell's book in this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've also used this article to add information on other stones located on Withypool Hill and on the size of the largest stone in the circle. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Interpreting Landscapes: Geologies, Topographies, Identities; Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology 3, by Christopher Tilley, may have some discussion; I can't view the relevant pages on Google Books. As it's so recent, it may contain new information that the other sources do not. If you happen to be able to access it...

• Yes, I can see the book's index and it mentions that the stone circle is mentioned on page 300. I shall try to access that book as soon as possible (next week probably). Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately I could not gain access to this book either. I'll try again another time, but I don't think that this omission should be an impediment at GA level. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course! Josh Milburn (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Stone circles in England?

• Good idea. Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it looks like it's sometimes called Withypool Hill Stone Circle; this should probably be added to the lead. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not found any information referring to the site with that name, Josh; where did you come across it? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Page 121 of Burl's From Carnac to Callanish: The Prehistoric Stone Rows and Avenues of Britain, Ireland, and Brittany, for example. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And page 39 of your Grinsell source, it seems! May not be as common, but I do think it's there, so probably worth a mention. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know how I missed that one! Added to the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks like there are 3 sources which remain to be looked at and an outstanding comment or two above. I'll hold off for now; no need to rush a promotion. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that that is everything, Josh. Many thanks for taking the time to review the article and for your patience on this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I've made a last few edits and I am happy to promote. My only other comment is about the metric/imperial switch in the article, but I'm not going to lose sleep over that! Thanks, Josh Milburn (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]