This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Scotland and
Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
islands in Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Scottish IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Scottish IslandsScottish Islands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
A bit out of the scope of the review. I think having a separate list does stop this article getting out of hand and both separate lists and British and Scottish articles on a topic are a common format.--SabreBD (
talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)reply
I am happy to accept there being a separate list, but there is no point in working on this article (from your perspective) if it is to be the subject of a merge discussion in a short time. Moving
Hillforts in Britain to
Hillforts in England and not leaving a redirect would make more sense to me. I won't push the issue any further, because as you say it is not necessary for the purposes of this review.
Jamesx12345 15:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The intro needs a bit of copy-editing. Links to
hill fort and
Scotland, as well as some mention of when and by whom they were built. The history of study is less important, I think, and could make its own separate section.
Jamesx12345 15:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Hillfort is linked in the first instance outside of the bold title. Scotland is not usually linked as it is a common geographical term.--SabreBD (
talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)reply
"introduced" - were they from somewhere else? I can't think of a better word.
I cannot either at the moment. Perhaps I will come back to that one.--SabreBD (
talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)reply
"Clyde-Forth line..." - southern Scotland would be clearer.
It is easier to understand, but not as precise. This is the term used time and again in the literature, but if you insist I will change it.--SabreBD (
talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Any alternative suggestions? We are dealing with a lot of uncertainties here.--SabreBD (
talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The refs are all books, so harvnb would look a lot nicer (IMHO.) That said, there is some variety that would be best gotten rid of in how refs are implemented.
Jamesx12345 15:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)reply
"with a close relationship to Roman constructions" - I don't fully understand this in context. Does it mean those that have been used/ modified by Romans?
I added an explanation in parenthesis.--SabreBD (
talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Paragraph 2 of Early studies could use a few more refs. If ref 2 covers everything, implementing it a few more times as per the previous paragraph would look better.
"r. c." - is that similar to fl.? I can't say I've heard it used in this context before.
Its "reigned circa".--SabreBD (
talk) 12:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The template is a great solution. Thanks.--SabreBD (
talk) 15:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The format of the references appears to be consistent, but the bibliography is redundant. My preference when citing books is to use {{harvnb}}, but you might have something else.
This is my preferred compromise.--SabreBD (
talk) 12:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)reply
BCE/CE anomalous in a Scottish context
In Scottish archaeology (and British archaeology more generally), BC/AD is the common way to refer to dates before and after the (putative) birth of Jesus of Nazareth.
94.10.31.227 (
talk) 20:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Scotland and
Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
islands in Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Scottish IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Scottish IslandsScottish Islands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
A bit out of the scope of the review. I think having a separate list does stop this article getting out of hand and both separate lists and British and Scottish articles on a topic are a common format.--SabreBD (
talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)reply
I am happy to accept there being a separate list, but there is no point in working on this article (from your perspective) if it is to be the subject of a merge discussion in a short time. Moving
Hillforts in Britain to
Hillforts in England and not leaving a redirect would make more sense to me. I won't push the issue any further, because as you say it is not necessary for the purposes of this review.
Jamesx12345 15:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The intro needs a bit of copy-editing. Links to
hill fort and
Scotland, as well as some mention of when and by whom they were built. The history of study is less important, I think, and could make its own separate section.
Jamesx12345 15:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Hillfort is linked in the first instance outside of the bold title. Scotland is not usually linked as it is a common geographical term.--SabreBD (
talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)reply
"introduced" - were they from somewhere else? I can't think of a better word.
I cannot either at the moment. Perhaps I will come back to that one.--SabreBD (
talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)reply
"Clyde-Forth line..." - southern Scotland would be clearer.
It is easier to understand, but not as precise. This is the term used time and again in the literature, but if you insist I will change it.--SabreBD (
talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Any alternative suggestions? We are dealing with a lot of uncertainties here.--SabreBD (
talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The refs are all books, so harvnb would look a lot nicer (IMHO.) That said, there is some variety that would be best gotten rid of in how refs are implemented.
Jamesx12345 15:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)reply
"with a close relationship to Roman constructions" - I don't fully understand this in context. Does it mean those that have been used/ modified by Romans?
I added an explanation in parenthesis.--SabreBD (
talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Paragraph 2 of Early studies could use a few more refs. If ref 2 covers everything, implementing it a few more times as per the previous paragraph would look better.
"r. c." - is that similar to fl.? I can't say I've heard it used in this context before.
Its "reigned circa".--SabreBD (
talk) 12:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The template is a great solution. Thanks.--SabreBD (
talk) 15:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)reply
The format of the references appears to be consistent, but the bibliography is redundant. My preference when citing books is to use {{harvnb}}, but you might have something else.
This is my preferred compromise.--SabreBD (
talk) 12:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)reply
BCE/CE anomalous in a Scottish context
In Scottish archaeology (and British archaeology more generally), BC/AD is the common way to refer to dates before and after the (putative) birth of Jesus of Nazareth.
94.10.31.227 (
talk) 20:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply