`  :Some comments: :1) I can't find any reference in the article to the fact that the hill, into which the giant is carved, is itself composed of chalk. I think this should be mentioned, otherwise readers may believe that the lining of the trenches is undertaken using a material that is alien to the underlying bedrock. :2) In the 'Description' section there is inconsistency of priority with respect to measurements in metres and feet - some measurements place metres first, others place feet. :3) I notice in the image showing the Homer Simpson depiction that the colour of the turf is very different inside the Giant's 'enclosure' compared to that outside; I'm assuming this is due to the fact that fertilisers are not used on the turf inside the enclosure, and wonder if it's worth researching/mentioning as part of the text about wild flowers/ecology etc.? :4) At one point in the article's recent history there was a mention to some TV research done by Aubrey Manning; this seems to have disappeared, though it isn't obvious why. :5) Currently there are some drawings of the Giant under the caption ``Cerne Abbas Giant at different dates``, though I wonder if the wording of the caption means this classes as original research and is misleading; how do we know that these depictions are/were accurate? Is it not possible that artistic licence might have been used in any of these drawings, particularly with respect to depicting the presence (or not) of the Giant's phallus? I would prefer the caption ``Depictions of the Giant at different dates``, perhaps with a note in the text that artists might not always have been honest in how they portrayed the Giant's erection. :6) The article's first image, with the perspective adjusted, is a somewhat misleading representation - no-one on the ground ever gets a view like that. I understand why such an image is included, as non-manipulated photos of the Giant are not as clear to view, however I personally think a manipulated image should appear further down the article. :  `