The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 13:13, 23 February 2015 [1].

---

List of Scheduled Monuments in North Somerset[edit]

List of Scheduled Monuments in North Somerset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in North Somerset/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 10:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following the promotion of List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset and List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane and nomination of List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset this is the next in the series (the fourth of seven), using the same format. As with the others it includes scheduled monuments from the Neolithic to more recent times, including photographs where available. — Rod ^talk 10:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Under Cadbury Camp the last 2 references are the same. Keith D (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks removed.— Rod ^talk 21:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Not sure we really need to link common geographical terms like Great Britain. Unlinked.— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] And then, it might be helpful to link tumuli since that's not a common term. Linked.— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] "but they were finally destroyed" it sounds odd to my ear to hear about people being destroyed, normally I'd reserve that term for objects... Changed to defeated.— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] "Sites from the Middle Ages include several motte-and-bailey castles, such as Locking Castle and church crosses" probably my misunderstanding, but are you saying a "church cross" is a "motte-and-bailey castle"? Added a comma as the church crosses are also from the Middle Ages- does that help Not a biggie, but you pipelink "glassworks" to "Nailsea glassworks " which subsequently redirects to Nailsea Glassworks, could we at least avoid the redirect? Done You probably could link the industrial revolution. Added and surprisingly it appears to be capitalised as a proper name.— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Banwell Camp row, Type column: capitalise the h of hillfort for consistency. Done.— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] There are several others of these... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Done several now - I think I introduced this when I standardised hill fort to hillfort.— Rod talk 19:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Confusion over whether things are Bell or Bowl barrows, e.g. compare Type and Description for "Bowl barrow 230 m NNE of Quarry Farm" and the two subsequent entries. Changed to Bowl.— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Also appears to be some inconsistency between capitalisation of Bell in the descriptions. I've gone with capitalisation of the first word eg Bowl barrow but I'm not sure now.— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] "is a well preserved ..." would a hyphen not be normally used here? Added.— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] "Chantry Chapel" any reason the c of chapel is capitalised? Also, in the Type col you link the whole phrase, in the description you exclude chapel from the link. Done.— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] "A 3 metres (9.8 ft) high stone" should just be metre. If you're using the ((convert)) template, you can achieve this by adding a |adj=on parameter. Apply to other similar instances. Hope I've got them all.— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Capitalise coal mine in the Type col for consistency. Done.— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Be consistent with the hyphenation of "motte-and-bailey". Done.— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] And the capitalisation of Motte... (e.g. "A Motte and bailey castle was..." follows an entry which says "was a motte and bailey on " Done.— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Not sure you need to link archaeology... Sorry I'm not seeing this one only as part of Earthworks (archaeology).— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] It's in the "Slight univallate hillfort and associated earthworks on Burrington Ham" row, you link it there but nowhere else in the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] "archaeological" unlinked (thats why my search for "archaeology" didn't find it.— Rod talk 19:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] "An oval hillfort approximately" you previously linked the Type when describing it, not here... Done.— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] You link univallate but not multivallate, any reason? They both now link to hillfort#Types of hillfort as we don't have specific articles on the different types.— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] You have some hectares converting to acres, some acres converting to hectares, I'm normally expect the conversions to be one way and consistent. I think it depends on the age of the English Heritage data sheets - they have changed over time, but tried to make them all convert the same way (the only one I found was Stokeleigh Camp).— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] "The crosshead was destroyed during the time of the English Civil Wars." that's some time span you're linking.... I've removed that claim - in the article Wick St. Lawrence it is cited to an offline source I don't have and can't check for more detail.— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Does St Lawrence have a full stop after it's St or not? I've put it back in as our article has one (see line above) but I thought MOS:ABBR was against it - on rereading it it depends on official useage. MOS may have changed.— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Inconsistent linking in the refs, e.g. English Heritage is sometimes linked, the BBC is not, National Trust never... Wikilinking removed for consistency - hope I've caught all of these.— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Also seeing BBC and British Broadcasting Corporation... Standardised on BBC Roman Britain or Roman-Britain.org? Roman-Britain.org.— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] That's it for a reasonably quick run through. Hope it helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. It is amazing how you can read the article hundreds of times and miss these sorts of things - it needs a new set of eyes.— Rod talk 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] You're always welcome. I've added a quick couple of responses above before I make dinner for the exhausted missus and the cats. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a high-quality list. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Too many 'severals' in the lead.

• Several 'severals' removed or replaced.

• " Worlebury Camp which was probably built by either the Goidel or Brython people.[3] The Belgae people subsequently overthrew the initial inhabitants and occupied the camp for a time, but they were finally defeated at the hands of the Romans." The comments and sources are far too dated to be reliable. There are more up to date sources in the wiki article on the camp and at pastscape.

• I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. How old would you say are inherently too "outdated" to be reliable. Just because a report is from 2007 or a website last updated 2010 doesn't to my mind make them unreliable. Are you saying new information has emerged since then, changing our understanding of the site?— Rod ^talk 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Your citations are dated 1919 and 1921 and the details sound to me like unreliable guesswork. E.g. Goidel or Brython people means Q (Irish) or P (British) Gaelic speakers, which does not make sense in this context, and it is unlikely that modern archaeologists would think that we could know that Belgae displaced earlier inhabitants.

• It has just clicked with me that you are looking at the references used in the lead (3 & 4) I was looking at the references used to support the entry for Worlebury Camp (92-95). Give me a few hours to check which source says what and I will revise the lead.— Rod ^talk 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• These claims removed from the lead. I will look at Scheduled Monuments in Somerset as I believe the same text appears there.— Rod ^talk 10:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Aveline's Hole. The human bone fragments it contained, from about 21 different individuals". Barry Cunliffe says more than 50 individuals. Also you say Palaeolithic, but it is Mesolithic. I can amend if you wish.

• Happy for you to change it or give the Cunliffe ref so I can do it here & on the article.— Rod ^talk 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for doing this one.— Rod ^talk 10:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The box and ball at the top of the shaft was added in 1877." Shouldn't this be "were added" or are the box and ball one thing?

• They tend to be added as a single decorative feature, but I'm happy to be guided on this.— Rod ^talk 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I leave this to you.

• "Deserted medieval farmstead, Banwell|Deserted medieval farmstead 420 m south of Gout House Farm" Repetition.

• My oops - now fixed.— Rod ^talk 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The hillfort was refortified around 400" I would add CE (or AD).

• Added AD (was actually between 430 and 480 AD).— Rod ^talk 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks - always useful comments.— Rod ^talk 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "occupation extended into the sub-Roman period, from which much imported pottery has been recovered." No change needed, but there were imports from the eastern Mediterranean including Byzantium at this time, and it would be interesting if this is true at Cadbury.

• The best on this seems to be The pastscape entry which has " finds of pottery imported from the Mediterranean.".— Rod ^talk 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is known to have been occupied between 1290 and 1332." I would prefer is recorded in 1290 and 1332, as in EH. Known as occupied between implies a very short occupation, which may be wrong.

• Done.— Rod ^talk 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Coins and pottery from 250 to 360". I think it is always better to say CE or AD with early dates like that.

• Fair point - Done.— Rod ^talk 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Motte-and-bailey castle 650 m NNW of Sandpoint Farm". You date this 11C, which is likely, but I cannot see it in the source.

• I have changed it to Middle Ages and added a ref (Gatehouse). The source previously used says "monuments of the early post-Conquest period" and "built and occupied from the 11th to the 13th centuries" bit these are general comments rather than specific to this site.— Rod ^talk 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "which was occupied from the middle of the 1st century until at least the fifth century, demonstrated by the coins of Theodosius, Magnus Maximus and Arcadius". This is not quite right. EH says abandoned c.380 and then some buildings re-occupied (presumably by squatters) c. 400.

• I will take another look.— Rod ^talk 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to have missed this one. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I meant to go back to that and obviously forgot. Now revised - could you take another look at check it properly represents the Pastscape source?— Rod ^talk 18:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a difficult one. Pastcape says it was a defended villa estate, the list entry that the view that it was a villa is out of date. As Pastscape is dated 2007 and the list entry cites a 2014 source I think it might be best to ignore Pastscape. I suggest something like "This was an Iron Age settlement Romanised in the late first century. It grew to become a commercial agricultural centre which was abandoned by about 200 AD. Around 300 AD a defensive wall was constructed up to 5 metres thick enclosing an area of about 7 hectares. Remains include both a mosaic pavement and evidence of industrial activities, and coins shows that the site was occupied throughout the Roman period. The site may have been finally abandoned during an outbreak of bubonic plague in the middle of the sixth century." Dudley Miles (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now gone with your suggestion - I'm just slightly nervous about whether "Romanised" should be capitalised or not.— Rod ^talk 21:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I wondered about that. Still in my experience some expert will come along and sort it out! (In general in my opionion on Wikipedia there is far too much lower casing of expressions which ought to be capitalised, but life is too short to argue about issues like that.) Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "in 1968 the priory and adjoining land of Middle Hope was purchased by the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty" It seems a bit over the top to give the full name of the NT, especially as it only owned the site for a year.

• Shortened to National Trust (and linked).— Rod ^talk 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Another fine list. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive-by comment I see that this is indicative of all lists of this type, but why is "scheduled monument" written in title case at some points, but in sentence case at others? Is it a proper noun or not? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comment. The vast majority (all but one on that list use upper case for Scheduled Monument) and I hope I have been consistent with all the Somerset ones (see Scheduled Monuments in Somerset). I think there historical variations linked to both articles Scheduled monument and Ancient monument. The law in the UK Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 specifies the legal basis, whether this makes it a proper noun I am unsure.— Rod ^talk 17:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it does. As I've said on my talk page, the text of the 1979 Act refers to the uncapitalised "ancient monument" and "scheduled monument". Eric Corbett 18:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks I can move the Somerset articles (leaving a redirect from the capitalised titles) unless there is a more elegant (? bot) way of doing this? If I move this North Somerset one while an FLC is in progress will this break templates or similar?— Rod ^talk 19:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we generally end up moving articles ourselves rather than relying on Bots, particularly as we need to avoid double redirects etc. Happy to help if you can provide a list.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The main list for England is List of Scheduled Monuments (but many of these have not been created so would need the list editing rather than page moves). Scheduled Monuments in Wales has many more. I'm not aware of these for Scotland or NI. I will do the Somerset ones (see Scheduled Monuments in Somerset) but help with the others would be good. What might be a bit more work is actually checking within all the articles for the capitalisation. Do we also need to consider the categories (see Category:Scheduled Ancient Monuments and all its sub cats)?— Rod ^talk 19:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice article, impressive work. I have one or two small points--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In the lead, Neolithic should be linked. There's also a problem here as in the table Aveline's Hole is listed as Mesolithic . . .
• Why do we need to know where Banwell Camp is in the Name column since there's a link and the information is in the description anyway? Same for Cadbury Camp etc. If this is the normal way of doing it, why are others not done this way (i.e. Aveline's Hole)?
• Since there is no consistency in the "Name" column (i.e. Aveline's Hole is a proper name, "Duck decoy, 250 m south of Black Rock Villas" is just a description), why is this been chosen as the primary method of sorting these monuments? Why not location or "Completed" (which by the way should be "Date Completed")?

Thanks for your comments. I have revised and slightly reordered the lead to give mesolithic for Aveline's Hole and then neolithic tumuli etc. I believe all the others are listed in the name column using the terminology included on the English Heritage data sheets (as they recommend to the Secretary of State that sites should be scheduled it seems reasonable to give that title) - I don't know why Aveline's Hole was not described in the same way but I have changed it now. The column names are generated by Template:EH listed building header which is used on hundreds of lists (including on the local ones on Scheduled monuments in Somerset) so I can't just change it on this list & a change to the column titles may need to be discussed on the template talk page.— Rod ^talk 21:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good answers. If those are the "official" names (as in the ones on the EH datasheets) then that is a perfectly reasonable explanation - it might be worth noting it in the article, perhaps as an inline notation or in italics at the top of the list, because if you don't know that it does look a bit odd. And I certainly wouldn't recommend messing around with templates. I think I'm happy to support, although do think about explaining in the article why the names are the way they are.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have added a sentence (to this article and the other Somerset lists) saying "The monuments are listed below using the titles given in the English Heritage data sheets.".— Rod ^talk 08:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.