User talk:Gbern10/The Archaeological Site of Santa Isabel

For starters, I think the title of this article should follow the format Santa Isabel, Nicaragua (archaeological site) similar to other Wikipedia entries. Once in Wikipedia mainspace, it will need to be added to the Santa Isabel disambiguation page. The reason why I would add Nicaragua to the title is because there are probably other sites with the same name elsewhere in Latin America, Spain, the Philippines, or other Spanish-speaking countries. That said, I'm really happy that you picked this site for which to create an article. It is super important and the work there merits recognition. Well chosen! Hoopes (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's essential for the first paragraph of an entry to be really clear. Note that [Rivas Department] is an existing article. This would be a better option until something such as [Rivas (archaeological region)] is created. The most relevant concept (illustrated in the map that you provide) is that of the [Greater Nicoya Archaeological Subarea] (the original technical name, since it was once considered to be a subarea of Mesoamerica, the larger culture area--something that has since been questioned). It's surprising there is not yet an article for [Greater Nicoya]. That would definitely be a worthwhile addition! Hoopes (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information on migrations from northern Costa Rica is slim, though there was definitely contact. It's also important to note that the migrations from central Mexico are still the subject of investigation. Perhaps it would be best to move mention of this to the section on migration theory. In the initial paragraph, you mention "iconographic similarities", but you don't say to what. Note also that the archaeological concept of [Assemblage (archaeology)] will not be familiar to the average reader, and so deserved a hyperlink. Hoopes (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Excavation History, you should make sure to add hyperlinks--if possible--to archaeological concepts that may not be familiar to the average reader. For example, "chronological sequence" and "stratigraphically excavated" may be understood by archaeologists, but not laypeople. (Wikipedia has articles for [chronology] and [stratigraphy] that could be used to clarify these, as you have done with [seriation].) there are a number of empty hyperlinks. I would recommend removing these until there are articles for them. Note that the term terms "Middle Polychrome Period" and "Late Polychrome Period" are no longer used, having been replaced with "Sapoá Period" and "Ometepe Period" at the 1993 Cuajiniquil Conference (terms that you use, with appropriate dates, in the following paragraph). Archaeological phases at Santa Isabel are probably too specific (and therefore not sufficiently noteworthy) to be included in Wikipedia at this time. The regional survey published by Niemel in 2003 may no longer be "recently" (a term in general to be avoided, since this article will be around for a while). Note that you mention the Santa Isabel Archaeological Project before sayint what it was. (I would move the sentence in which it's mentioned to the next section.) Note that I've made some basic editorial changes to improve the style. Hoopes (talk)

The Migration Theory section should provide a bit more historical introduction. As noted above, it is not necessary to provide hyperlinks for the Greater Nicoya periods. (This sequence should, at some point, be provided in an article on Greater Nicoya.) Note that the Greater Nicoya Archaeological Subarea was initially defined by Norweb in 1964. The Traditional Perspective section needs more citations and references, as well as a clearer explanation of why it is "traditional". I think that hyperlinks to specific ceramic types may be too detailed for now, though perhaps someday this will be useful. (Note that Papagayo Polychrome is a type, not a style.) Pay attention to archaeological terms that may require hyperlinks, such as Slip (ceramics). The Revised Perspaective section can be tightened. The reference to the "Out of Mexico" hypothesis is unclear without a previous mention of what that is. Hoopes (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Domestic Practices section is a nice addition, though again it can be improved with tighter language, reduction of repetition, and additional hyperlinks. (See the edited changes.) Hoopes (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this entry, with the name changed to "Santa Isabel, Nicaragua (archaeological site)" is ready to be moved into Wikipedia mainspace. Hoopes (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]