Talk:Palaestra at Olympia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology

	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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

First comment

i think that there should be like a detailed description of a picture -leah...lots of offence

This article is basically what we call a stub though not marked so. It is bound to change. Look at it later and tell us what you think.Botteville (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article desperately needs a makeover, a "facelift" if you will, as its content is mostly newworldencyclopedia or from the greek wikipedia so it is quite unrefined and difficult to read. Bill L. Hal (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The old copy question

Bits of this are word-for-word from newworldencyclopedia; specifically the "unusual feature" sentence with the rainy day picture. I don't know which came first but now the whole article is suspect. That being so, I question whether the editor who put it together would know enough to say what was was unusual and what not. Moreover, there are no references. The words "hoaky concoction" come to my mind, and such an approach seems irresponsible and therefore juvenile to me. I know, there are a lot of non-juvenile nominally juveniles about, but I doubt this editor is one. If he knew enough to write these facts (if such they are) himself he would know enough to reference them. I don't see the point of this approach, as no one gains anything from it. I did look for the concrete strip across the many pictures we have, and didn't find it. However elsewhere at Olympia the caretakes have covered valuable mosaics with sand or a sand-like stuff to protect them, so let me check outside pictures. I also will go over the presentation looking for copying and finding refs.Botteville (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Later. Our text looks like a quick concoction of the easiest web sites. Maybe the editor meant to follow up. Those sites provide no references, which must be why the editor did not. I am finding material on the tile platform, which is a big mystery. It is a mystery to me where it is, since no visitor photos show it. Time to go on now to a referenced article.Botteville (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Treker change

Hello Treker. Thanks for your change whatever it may be. I can't locate it. I assume it was minor. In the future if you can start writing your reasons for a change or marking the trivial change box I would appreciate it!Botteville (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]