Talk:Spit (archaeology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Archaeology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Trans to wiktionary[edit]

I removed the 'transfer to wiktionary' tag, as to me it seems there's considerably more potential for an informative article beyond a straightforward dicdef. For eg, discussions on the pros and cons of this technique, contrasts with other archaeological & excavational methods, its place in theoretical models, examples & sub-areas where it's been used, and so on. Also, retain on wikipedia alongside others such as cut (archaeology), relationship (archaeology), feature (archaeology), fill (archaeology), etc etc.

The article may just need some tidying to align with Wikipedia's 'house style' of presentation and conventions; otherwise, it's already a decent start (thanks to the orig contributors).--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledgements[edit]

I removed the following from the article body- while it's entirely appropriate to cite references and sources used, this seemed more a case of citing contributors to the article, a different thing:

This entry was the result of a discussion on the term "spit" on the Ausarch discussion list in May 2008 and small parts of the contributions by Val Attenbrough, John Clegg, Jeannette Hope and Iain Stuart have been used in this entry.

If there's any verbatim quotation in the article of those mentioned, should probably be replaced with sources that for wikipedia's purposes are reliable and verifiable. Which is not at all meant to imply that those mentioned are not personally reliable or knowledgeable and the info given is incorrect — only that, we normally consider discussion lists to be by their very nature unsuitable for use as citeable references and quotation sources for articles. I'm sure there'd be many possible published sources that could be used to substitute as the citeable references for the statements made here. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)