Roddon

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A new article about a term used to describe a geographical feature in the East Anglia region deserves, I believe, a wider audience; especially considering rodham, one of the documented spellings of the term, has other more widely used meanings! Be bold whilst the main contributor still has access to local library sources. Anyway, enough blather, why not tear the article to pieces or perhaps just consider a regrading? --Senra (Talk) 16:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Senra (Talk) 16:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, but perhaps too much weight is given to the etymological debate and too little weight to formation and settlement. I'd like to know more about the latter two, and I think expansion of both would improve the article. Here are other suggestions, mostly about prose and style issues.

• The link-checker at the top of this review page finds one dead citation url.

• Can you show me which one? I checked the links after posting the review and again just now and there are no dead links as far as I can see --Senra (Talk) 21:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked again just now, and the link checker finds nothing amiss. I either got a false positive or made a mistake. In any case, the links now look fine. Finetooth (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article rather than an introductory paragraph. The existing lead defines roddon and mentions building but says nothing about etymology or formation. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections. WP:LEAD has details.

•  Done --Senra (Talk) 15:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "A roddon, also written as rodham, roddam or rodden, is the dried raised remains... " - Since "roddon" is singular and "remains" is plural, this is a bit awkward. Would "bed" be better than "remains"?

•  Done --Senra (Talk) 21:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

• "The term roddon... " - Italicise "roddon" when preceded by "the term"? Ditto a couple of sentences later?

•  Done --Senra (Talk) 21:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Silvester suggests that the term roddon... " - Would it be helpful here to give Silvester's full name and a brief description? I'm thinking of something like "archeologist Bob Silvester". Ditto for some of the other authors?

•  Done added profession and full name to only those authors mentioned directly in the text but not for authors mentioned indirectly --Senra (Talk) 21:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "is more popular amongst local writers such as Fowler" - The Manual of Style prefers "among" to "amongst".

•  Done --Senra (Talk) 21:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "and Godwin (1978)[7], though" - Punctuation should come before the ref rather than after.

•  Done --Senra (Talk) 21:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• as a local term 'used only in the Isle of Ely' - The Manual of Style prefers double quotes to single except in the case of nested quotes.

•  Done --Senra (Talk) 21:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "although the earliest written use of the word roddam was by Skertchly (1877)." - This seems to repeat what was already explained in the previous sentence, but then it becomes clear in the next sentence that the O.E.D. takes a different view about the earliest use of roddam. Would it be more logical to keep the sentences about "roddam" together and to avoid mixing "rodham" and "roddam"?

•  Done I was trying to keep the discussions by the three sources (Silvester, Astbury and OED) together but I think I failed even at that. Rearranged the prose - hopefully it reads better now --Senra (Talk) 21:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "None of the different spelling variations of roddon are found... " - Should be "None ... is" since "none" is singular.

•  Done I did not know this :) --Senra (Talk) 21:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "are found in the Reverend Forby's" - The Manual of Style would prefer "Robert Forby" without the professional title.

•  Done --Senra (Talk) 21:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• although he defines gall as "a vein of sand in a stiff soil, through which water is drained off, and oozes at softer places on the surface; otherwise sand-galls." - Is there any connection between a "gall" and a "roddon"? Would sand normally be found in soils consisting of clay and silt? In other words, are roddons normally sandy?

• comment interesting and possibly true. No source for this and my own insertion of gall may even be WP:OR. (More WP:OR ...) ... old dried up tidal rivers will be sandy so roddons formed from such rivers will contain sand
•  Done removed the WP:OR --Senra (Talk) 21:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formation

• suggests the peat in this area was formed by a large marine incursion in about 2400 BC" - It would be helpful to briefly explain the relationship between marine incursions and peat formation. Many readers will know nothing about peat or where it comes from. The term marine incursion suggests that the sea rose and covered formally drier land with sea water for a considerable time. How this leads to peat formation is not clear. What does the sea water do to make peat? What other ingredients are necessary?

• comment guess I need to explain this in the article because as far as I understand it, peat is formed by the decay of vegetable matter in fresh water and yes I know the source said marine incursion. The fen basin has had a complex marine and fresh water incursion history which I had not wanted to go into here --Senra (Talk) 22:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If adding an explanation to the main text messes up the prose flow, perhaps the explanation could go into a note. I don't think it would have to be elaborate. Finetooth (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done I put a extensive explanatory note --Senra (Talk) 15:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The roddons in the area have been sampled confirming their formation from the mid– to late–Holocene age (6000–2000 BP (before present day))." - The double-nested parentheses are best avoided. Maybe just linking to Before Present would do, or you could spell BP out.

•  Done --Senra (Talk) 22:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "the raised nature of the silt banks are due to the 'subsistence' of the surrounding area," - Double quote marks. Also, assuming this means "subsidence", it might be helpful to add a [sic] and a translation.

•  Done someone corrected it and it was my transcription error anyway --Senra (Talk) 22:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "mainly due to man-made events such as agriculture and drainage" - These two aren't "events". Would "activities" be better?

•  Done "activities" is much better; certainly better than the sources use of anthropogenically --Senra (Talk) 22:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "; a permanent change, which will mean future marine incursions cannot be predicted from past events." - The sentence to which this is appended is a bit too complex. Perhaps splitting off this part would be better. Maybe "These have permanently changed the environment, and future marine incursions may not have the same effects as historical ones."

•  Done --Senra (Talk) 22:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Settlements

• "major structures such as the monastery" - Plural, monasteries?

•  Done --Senra (Talk) 22:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Cretaceous and Jurassic?

•  Done --Senra (Talk) 22:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• To eliminate the one-sentence orphan paragraph at the end of this section, I'd suggest merging it with the paragraph above it.

•  Done --Senra (Talk) 22:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be interesting to know how these structures fared compared to nearby structures built on other soil types. Are the "roddon" buildings more sturdy? Are people still building on roddons? Do people consider the roddon structures to be more desirable or less desirable than other structures? Do any building codes or rules apply specifically to structures built on roddons?

• comment will work this in.--Senra (Talk) 22:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done added a little bit. Sources do not have much to say unfortunately. There are no specific building codes that I can find. Not sure home owners are that aware to be honest. I hope I have done enough --Senra (Talk) 15:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

• File:Benwick2.jpg is a duplicate of the same image at the Commons. I have never done the sort of clean-up involved with this kind of duplication, but I'm pretty sure it would be helpful to tag the English Wikipedia version for removal.

• Not sure what to do here so for the moment stet --Senra (Talk) 15:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page.

Thank you for the review - I will address the issues raised in the next few days --Senra (Talk) 22:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodw comments: Thanks for inviting me to look at the article. I don't have the copy editing skills you may be looking for, and I'm more familiar with the peat bogs of the Somerset Levels than The Fens but do have a couple of questions/comments:

• There is no mention of the peat being cut for fuel - didn't this occur in the area?

• comment Yes it did. I am thinking the article is about the old river beds not the peat. Finetooth asked me to mentioned how peat was formed which I did. I will make a mention --Senra (Talk) 09:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In the formation section both BP and BC/AD are used for time periods - I found this confusing and I wonder if they could be made consistent with one system or another?

• agreed the difficulty I have is following sources and I have no reliable method of converting from one to the other. The modern trend is to use BP whilst older sources use BC/AD. I will research this one --Senra (Talk) 09:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• stet Most of the dates in the article are either explicit, e.g. 1897 or calibrated radio-carbon dates quoted as years before present (BP). There is currently one BC date (due Worssam & Taylor 1975, p. 93.) which I considered converting to BP. I raised this on the reliable source noticeboard and I was advised not to convert BC to BP --Senra (Talk) 13:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This sentence ""subsidence" of the surrounding area, mainly due to man-made activities such as agriculture and drainage." could do with expansion - when did drainage start? why? Should a link to the work of the Middle Level Commissioners be considered? This is certainly an issue on the Levels where large areas are drying out & archaeological sites are having to be kept artificially wet.

• comment the focus of the article is supposed to be dried up river beds not drainage. I could mention a little more about drainage sure --Senra (Talk) 09:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In Settlements - should Lower Greensand be wikilinked?

•  Done --Senra (Talk) 09:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The phrase "X is built on a roddon" referring to various places, is reused multiple times - perhaps this could be reworded in some instances?

•  Done --Senra (Talk) 09:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The final sentence about Rodham Farm could be rewritten and the reference details removed.

•  Done --Senra (Talk) 09:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful.— Rod ^talk 08:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comments. I will address these one by one --Senra (Talk) 09:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• General comments

• I think I am struggling with this article. Two reviewers have now asked for further details on peat and drainage. The former is entirely incidental to a roddon whilst the latter has had a recent (post 17th century) minor influence. I need to take note of the review comments whilst finding enough material to keep the article centred on roddons. Yes, I am struggling.

• The article discusses a specific local geographical feature that has not been widely studied so the literature is sparse and cannot even agree on the etymology never mind the formation mechanism.

• Any help from other editors would be appreciated on this

--Senra (Talk) 10:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comments about Peat & drainage are related to the elevation of the Roddons above the surrounding land. You might want to acquire a copy of Jennings paper - The Origin of the Fenland Meres: Fenland Homologues of the Norfolk Broads, Geological Magazine (1950), 87: 217-225 Cambridge University Press, doi: 10.1017/S0016756800076950 & Godwins 1975 paper Studies of the Post-Glacial History of British Vegetation: XVI. Flandrian Deposits of the Fenland Margin at Holme Fen and Whittlesey Mere, Hunts.].— Rod ^talk 10:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I have requested the above articles --Senra (Talk) 11:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]