Talk:Ellerbusch Site

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Untitled[edit]

GA reviewer, please note that the paucity of imagery is unavoidable: the site is on private property far enough from the road that only a distant comprehensive image such as the photo in the infobox is practical, and it's such a basic site that a plan wouldn't be that helpful. As noted in the article, all artifacts found before excavation are owned by the property owners, and if any artifacts found during excavation were removed, they're in storage; Ellerbusch is too obscure of a site to warrant placement of its artifacts in museums or other places where the public can photograph them. Nyttend (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ellerbusch Site/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 18:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

review

Is "Ellerbusch Site" an official name of this site - I can't find anything on google

Lede

  • "Unlike many sites created by people of the same culture," - why not name the culture?
  • Angel Site - since "mound" is so much more meaningful, could you change the pipe to Angel Mounds Site?
  • " it occupies an upland site near a major river floodplain." - why not say the Ohio River - give more info in lede
  • "Its existence appears to have been the result of the coincidence of a period of peace and growth in the related Angel Site, which led some townspeople to leave their homes for new villages that were more convenient for resource gathering." see WP:AVOID - very vague. "townspeople" seems wrong word for people living in villages back then.

Environment

  • Seasonal human migration doesn't mean the same as "seasonal agriculture" to which it is piped.
  • "an IU doctoral student began to study the possibility of renewing work" - is this important enough to mention?
  • The whole second paragraph needs rewriting IMO for conciseness, clarity of prose.
  • "Thomas J. Green conducted a more intensive investigation of the site: while the Ellerbusches and Martins had excavated a single house in what amounted to a large test excavation, Green conducted careful work on 3,700 square feet (340 m2) of the site." - don't think this the colon works and the sentence is too long.
  • "His excavation was meant to use Ellerbusch in order to pioneer extensive study at one of southwestern Indiana's smaller Mississippian sites, which to that point had received very little intensive attention" - why is the Mississippian culture only mentioned now?
  • All the reasons for studying a smaller site needs it's own paragraph IMO, to state clearly what is important about this culture and why it should be studied.

(will continue)

  1. Ellerbusch is the official name. It's quite obscure, so you won't find much information on Google (it took me forever to find the citation #5 article), but this is the name used by all sources that don't simply use 12-W-56.
  2. Why do we need to give lots of links in the intro? It's an intro, after all, and the identity of the river isn't relevant to the location of the site.
  3. Giving the culture would force a choice between Mississippian and Angel Phase, which really isn't important
  4. Green and Munson speaks specifically of Angel as a town (see page 310 of citation #5), and residents of a town are townspeople. Moreover, we have to be vague, since the source is vague. Given the complete absence of writing and of oral history, we can't be sure why they settled as they did.
  5. Read the Seasonal human migration article. Except for a section specifically excluding agriculture, the whole point is agriculture by people who migrate seasonally.
  6. Yes, important to mention because we're giving the history of excavations; it takes a while to make decisions.
  7. Your rewrite introduced grammatical errors and removed crucial information.
  8. The colon is grammatical, and chopping this sentence into pieces would harm the continuity necessary for a single thought.
  9. Because the sources concentrate on this being an Angel phase site, in contrast to Caborn-Welborn or other Mississippian subgroups. Only here do the sources start to talk about using it as a yardstick for Mississippians in general.
  10. This is not an article about the culture or why it should be studied; it's an article about a single site. We already have an article on the culture and another article on the phase of the culture. If we split the reasons for excavating a smaller site away from the rest of the current paragraph, we'd leave the current paragraph with just two sentences, which is way too short.

Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

These are in addition to my comments above which the nominator rejected.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
    The following are examples only:
    "Its existence appears to have been the result of the coincidence of a period of peace and growth in the related Angel Site, which led some townspeople to leave their homes for new villages that were more convenient for resource gathering."
    " the soil at the site is well suited for seasonal agriculture." - seasonal agriculture is piped to Seasonal human migration referring to: "Seasonal human migration is very common in agricultural cycles. It includes migrations such as moving sheep or cattle to higher elevations during summer to escape heat and find more forage. Human labor often moves with fruit harvest, or to other crops that require manual picking." - there is nothing in the article to support that this was the case.
    As far as the second, anyone can understand what it means, and if you happen to read the entire seasonal migration article and pay attention to its categories, you will observe that it concentrates on the topic for which I'm linking it. Meanwhile, besides the grammatical issue (now changed to "coincidence of periods of peace and growth"), what complaint do you have with the first sentence? All of the sources that touch on the issue suggest this as a strong possibility without proposing other alternatives, but because of the nature of prehistoric archaeology, they cannot say this for sure. The only bit of WP:VAGUE that appears to touch on this issue is WP:WEASEL, which says "However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the neutral point of view". Saying anything except mentioning this as a possibility would be analysis and interpretation, and saying nothing at all on this point would be a huge omission. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." and "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."
    This article fails lead as the lede is vague e.g. doesn't even mention the "culture" involved.
    e.g. The lead says: "Unlike many sites created by people of the same culture, it occupies an upland site near a major river floodplain." - it fails to name the culture or the major river.
    As I already told you, the culture involved is not particularly relevant to its notability, and nor is the river. I am using summary style, which provides only the important elements instead of burying the reader with details not necessary to understand the basics. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    Pipes Angel Mounds to "Angel Site", not a term used by others on WPl
    As an archaeological site, it is commonly referred to as "Angel Site" in all of the sources that I cited that mention it. Without wasting time on counting the times that they appear, look through ref name=project and see how many times "Angel site" and "Angel Mounds" appear respectively. Meanwhile, ref name=smith uses "Angel Site" except for a single instance of "Angel Mounds State Memorial" (in the passage used as a source for the one time that I used "Angel Mounds State Historic Site"), and ref name=green uses "Angel Site" as well. You'll also encounter the term "Angel site" at Angel Phase. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
    Not sure as very little information on this site is available
    What do you mean? Read the article and tell me if I used any source without mentioning it in the References section. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    The citations are not accessible, so they don't help figuring out what the article is about.
    Are you unable to access <ref name=project>? Moreover, sources don't need to be online, so you have no good reason for objecting to this. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    c. no original research:
    I can't tell.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Sort of. The reader has to read quite far down in the article to try to piece together what the focus is. On the culture? Or what?
    None of the sites specify what focus this is (Angel is a small phase, and if any foci have been defined, they're not mentioned in the sources), and the text specifies the culture. What main aspect is missing? Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    Some unnecessary detail, considering the length of the article"
    • Example only: "In June 1973, an IU doctoral student began to study the possibility of renewing work at the now-overgrown Ellerbusch Site.
    • I think that if the article were more concise and to the point (avoiding vague statements) it would be easier to understand.
    • Yet date not given for the next sentence: "Thomas J. Green conducted a more intensive investigation of the site: while the Ellerbusches and Martins had excavated a single house in what amounted to a large test excavation." (is this WP:SYNTH?)
    • Date added. Why do you allege a violation of WP:SYNTH? This is what the source says. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    no edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    None are available as the historical site is privately owned.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Fail for now. Will put on hold for seven days.
  • This article is very hard to understand.
  • Article is put on hold while problems are addressed. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Why can't you understand the text? Do you want me to restore your elements such as "the far southwestern area Warrick County"? Shall I restore little bitty sentences such as "This initial excavation was published in 1958" instead of making them part of other sentences where they flow properly? Besides violating the basic WP:GAN provision that nominations are reviewed by those who have "not contributed significantly to the article" and not by those who edit them substantially, you're objecting to elements used in the writing of the professionals that I used as sources. Please begin to follow our policies instead of objecting to issues such as the offline state of the citations and the employment of summary style. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
reply

I guess that you are unaware that I don't have access to the sources. You don't seem to understand that the reviewing editor can edit the article. The rule is: "you cannot review an article if you are the nominator or have made significant contributions to it prior to the review". Since you are accusing me of "violating the basic WP:GAN provision that nominations are reviewed by those who have "not contributed significantly to the article" while leaving out "prior to the review", I feel that I cannot continue this review. I made four minor edits, for a total of 71 bytes. You're failing to assume good faith. So I will withdraw from this review and fail the article since it seems we can't work together to improve it.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ellerbusch Site. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)