Wikipedia:Peer review/Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis/archive1
The article is very stable, and the editor who created it is hoping that one day it will be fit for featured article consideration. Ronz 23:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- The critisism in several journals and that the belive is not shared from most not to say all archaeologists should be mentioned in the intro. Controversial is a word which is nearly too weak to point out what this pyramides are about. Kampschror, Beth. (2006). "Pyramid Scheme". Archaeology. 59 (4): 22–28. “a cruel hoax on an unsuspecting public [which] has no place in the world of genuine science.” in Bohannon John (2006). "Researchers Helpless as Bosnian Pyramid Bandwagon Gathers Pace". Science. 314 (5807): 1862. doi:10.1126/science.314.5807.1862a. and Bohannon John (2006). "Mad About Pyramids". Science. 313 (5794): 1718–1720. doi:10.1126/science.313.5794.1718. and Schoch Robert M. (2006). "The Dangers of Pyramid-Mania". Science. 314 (5801): 925. doi:10.1126/science.314.5801.925b.. The point is also that no science journal ever printed apaper about this. The papers above do not bother to do scientific work on Lemuria and Atlantis. The Science papers and the Acheology paper should go into the article!--Stone
- Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Can you clarify please? Are you saying that more should be mentioned about the criticism in the lead section, and that we should add more references to support it. Further, that the criticism is a majority viewpoint of archaeologists?
- You probably didn't notice, but on the talk page there is a list of further references. All the ones you mention are included other than Schoch's letter. --Ronz 16:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- The article is still too optimistic about the pyramides, although at the very end it stats the article to be in tha category pseudoscience. The references are from "good" journals and they are all against the postulations of Osmanagić. They would give better credibility to the criticism and should go into the article and not on the talk page. The fact that Science publishes several articles about it makes it more important additionally. The criticism is a majority viewpoint of archaeologists! Some of the archaeologists acuse Osmanagić that he used their names as team members without permission.--16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. I agree. The article gives too much weight to Osmanagic and his foundation, which may have been appropriate when there were few sources other than the foundation, but now that we have many reliable sources to draw from and the foundation has shown itself to be unreliable, much should be rewritten with the proper weight. --Ronz 17:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- The article is still too optimistic about the pyramides, although at the very end it stats the article to be in tha category pseudoscience. The references are from "good" journals and they are all against the postulations of Osmanagić. They would give better credibility to the criticism and should go into the article and not on the talk page. The fact that Science publishes several articles about it makes it more important additionally. The criticism is a majority viewpoint of archaeologists! Some of the archaeologists acuse Osmanagić that he used their names as team members without permission.--16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Will.i.am
[edit]Great article so far! It was fascinating, and for the most part very well put together. Here's just a few nitpicks that you can take or leave:
- The section "Osmanagić's interpretation" feels just slightly out of order (it goes from something Osmanagić said, to "but", to "nevertheless", and then to "however"). Perhaps these sentences could be ordered chronologically to help the reader follow it?
- The last quotation in that section is quite long, and I don't really feel it's necessary (or at least not the whole thing. You can just say they're report said they found human bones, [ref] but later said they found none. Again, chronologically this might fit together more easily.
- In the "Other interpretations" section the article has more long quotes but doesn't set them off like in the previous section. Pick one style that you like.
- Some of the references have a space between their punctuation and the number (e.g., "blah. [14]" The space should be deleted.
- Geological team: "Geological" does not need to be capitalized (it is in a few locations).
- egsodynamical: I've never seen this word and can't figure out what it means from google or my dictionary. I think it may supposed to say "exodynamical".
- there are dozens of like morphological formations: How about "similar" instead of "like".
- "[19]" could be moved after the comma so as not to break up the sentence. "[20]" has two periods around it. "[24]" is on the wrong side of the period. "[25]" needs a period for the sentence. "[26]" and "[27]" should go after the punctuation.
- In a preliminary report he concluded : In this sentence "He" is a little ambiguous until we get the end of the sentence. It's probably better just to say "Schoch concluded...".
A few more general notes:
- I'm going to somewhat agree with Stone above. I might give the controversy its own paragraph in the lead and beef it up to emphasize the fact that there is a large consensus that they're just natural features. That paragraph could include some of the major criticisms, as well as the current statement about the international team of archaeologists denying they had been to the site.
- Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation: This was never really introduced. I assume that Osmanagić started the foundation, but is he the sole funder? Also, since it's such a long name you may consider abbreviating it after its first mention in the text (e.g., just call it the "Archaeological Park" or "BPSF").
Good luck!--Will.i.am 09:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the great feedback! This should keep us busy for a while. --Ronz 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)