172:
the
Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, that you could feel free to correspond with me about anything that may be controversial or of a significant impact on the articles in question, since I would be very happy to help out. Having the chief contributors of a particular article be able to see eye-to-eye on any major changes before they are done is always a good way to avoid edit wars and conflicts. I've spent thousands of hours working on these articles, and although I do not own them, I have a huge amount of invested interest in how they turn out - I hope you understand. However, I also would very deeply appreciate any help anyone can give - since the ground they cover is so tremendously huge, we need all the help we can get on this vital and important subject. Thanks, and well met! --
232:
to teach myself how to work with InkScape and I launched into what has become another monumental task in creating an .SVG map of SE Europe that I can then use for this. Then, all this came to a grinding hault this Spring when we bought a new house, and I've been very busy renovating it since. However, with the weather turning and cool temps and snow on the way, I will once again resume my efforts, hoping to complete this map, and to then return my attention to creating a series of articles for every major C-T archaeological site... That's what my basic plan of attack is. Along the way, I also hope to continue to clean up the C-T family of articles, and if someone actually does think they'd be candidates for cleaning up into FA status, I'd probably work on them full-time.
390:
first found it. Much of the condition of the article back then was in sorry shape because it had largely been written by non-native
English speakers, and it was quite obvious. Indeed, I'd go along with the reviewer's summation: it was "barely literate". However, being a newbie editor, I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings by going in with a heavy hand and rewriting the article and slashing out most of the photos. So, as a result of this review, I now feel completely confident in doing what I've wanted to do all along with it, and I can point to the reviewer's comments as justification for what I'm doing!
332:
got it back on its feet - but that maybe I wouldn't be the person who would take it through
Finishing School to become a very good article. It was a rather soul-searching evening last night - I was wondering if that that sort of thing really is where my strength lies, and whether I should just stick to what I'm good at, and let others do the finessing. So, enough of that blubbery stuff, but your words above made me feel lots better about the possibility that I could still contribute a lot to the C-T article: I've still got a lot of work I can do on it.
31:
545:
said in response to your first message, I am perfectly happy to restore the section and discuss it on the talk page; the reason I haven't made a habit of discussing the changes I've been making to WikiProject
Archaeology project beforehand is not because I don't like to collaborate but because, sadly, there isn't enough interest in the WikiProject at the moment for such discussions to happen. So I do sincerely welcome your input, but I don't feel that I'm missing something "obvious". —
67:
608:(or in our case the pacific) - there are people who call them selves anthros - who really are neither anthros or archeos but theoretical medicos imho - so that is why i think scope or goals is important - to acknowledge and carefully define usages of what a subject is - so as to how to place what these strange grey area north americans who might claim some aspect of what anthro or archeo is - if you get my drift -
183:
by jargon. I can't say I have anything significant to add to them now (like I said, comprehensive!), but if I do in the future I look forward to collaborating with you on it. I'm doing my UG dissertation on a
Cucuteni-Tripolye site, Nebelivka, so maybe that will turn up something useful. While you're here though, maybe there's something we can work together on now: I've recently tried to
570:- I could perhaps be forgiven that I was sure when I have started up the few projects in my time that 'scope and goals' were critical to get acceptance in the more busy days of this damned hall of silence - keep at it - and although the usage of the term of obvious was in fact incorrect - keep up the good work and
730:
might find useful resources or other editors that are interested in the subject. In this case I didn't fill in a quality assessment because it looked like you were in the middle of major edits, and it would be unfair to rate a work-in-progress, so that's why it shows ???. Hope that explains things for you. —
417:
That's one of the great things about
Knowledge, isn't it? That you don't have to do it all yourself. With the prose, it's a balancing act. If you rely too much on specialist terms to make it concise, it becomes unreadable unless you already know a lot about the subject (which defeats the purpose). If
389:
However, there were also some things that I was quite pleased about to see the reviewer discuss, namely: 1) that there are way too many photos, and 2) the prose. I found it interesting that the examples of the prose he cited were actually bits that I had kept largely untouched from the article when I
544:
I have read that guide, several times in fact. If I recall correctly it doesn't specifically advise having a point-by-point list of goals, or lay out a specific structure for project pages at all. Even if it did, I don't believe any point of style is set in stone - the context is all important. As I
530:
Oh, okay. I thought the specific goals were superfluous given the general goal given in the lead, i.e. "to improve archaeology related articles". But I guess I've gotten a little too bold in editing the project page over the last few weeks. I'll restore the section and maybe open a discussion on the
399:
So, I suppose I'll keep plugging away at this. I'm in no hurry to get it polished up fast, though. It's workable as it is at present, and if someone else wanted to do work on it, I'd be happy to have the help. :) Meanwhile, I have other projects I want to finish off before I return my full attention
331:
Bravo, Joey! Your words are like balm to my soul. I discussed this last night with my wife, and I was saying that perhaps it might be time for me to let go of the C-T article, that perhaps what I was good at doing was how I found it lying in the gutter, and I picked it up, breathed life into it, and
314:
Well it's mostly the prose he seemed to have a problem with, not the information itself, and that's relatively easier to fix. I will see what I can do to copy edit it myself this evening. The NPOV section I think has missed the mark: none of the things he highlighted are actually POV, although I can
379:
I had made the assumption that much of the "proof" of
Gimbutas' disreputation would be discussed in the subarticles, and that because of that it would not be necessary to go into it in length in the main article. I still believe this, and I'd say that the reviewer would probably agree, too, so long
231:
So, I started to create a series of articles (or to build upon existing ones) to do just that. I created about a dozen of these when I began to get fed up with the lack of a good reference map to indicate where precisely each of the
Cucuteni-Trypillian archaeological sites was. This is when I began
182:
Thanks for the message. I really admire the work you've done on the
Cucuteni-Tripolye articles - it actually inspired me to go and improve other prehistory-related articles by showing me that it is possible to have really well done and comprehensive articles that are not rendered completely useless
171:
Greetings, Joey Roe. I have noticed you have made some very nice edits in some of my pet pages, and I welcome any contributions you may provide to the work. I just wanted to extend the hand of mutual respect and fellowship, and hope that if you do continue to make improvements on the articles about
729:
on
Knowledge". Having it on pages, and the 'quality' and 'importance' ratings, help people involved with the Archaeology WikiProject keep track of how many archaeology-related articles there are on wikipedia and what state they're in. It also highlights to editors of the article a place where they
440:
But Goals of a WikiProject are in fact something to test scope - specially when in some countries the hazy distinctions between archaeology and other closely related disciplines get blurred - it might not see much to you -= but hey its a weird and wonderful bunch that inhabit this strange place -
365:
I would have been interested in hearing what the reviewer would have said had he also looked into some of the subarticles. When I worked on the main article, I tried to use as much of the original text as I could - which is one of the reasons the prose might feel klunky and awkward. However, in a
341:
I also remember how you mentioned that you liked how I'd written it without jargon, which seems to be (I'm guessing) what one of the things the reviewer was displeased about. Is that your take too? At any rate, I believe we both see eye-to-eye on this: that Knowledge articles should be written as
303:
Wow! I don't know if you saw this, but someone (Nergaal) nominated the C-T article for Good Article review. It was reviewed and failed, but the reviewer left some very constructive criticisms and comments to help improve the article. I had no idea that it was up for official review, so it sort of
207:
I dont' really know what to say - I'm very flattered to say the least that my work had a positive impact on anyone. Thanks. However, I do have to say that I really like what you did to the Boian culture article - you greatly improved its structural outline, and I like the changes you made to
628:
There is a separation here in Britain too, though personally I like the American way of looking at it (which is why I'm doing arch+anth). But I see what you mean. I have, for instance, puzzled over where the line between archaeology and Egyptology or Classics lies when tagging articles with
217:
After I got the Cucuteni-Trypillian thing separated out into subarticles, I was sort of exhausted from all the work it had taken, and so to give myself a break from it, I decided to undertake a massive effort to try to create an article for every single one of the major Cucuteni-Trypillian
603:
is the far more important one - I can remember my days as an anthrop student here in australia that we had very clear boundaries of anthrop and archeo's - but when you get into the usa version of things - the physical anthros from the states sound like another breed again - the old
679:
Ok but give me time - if there is an area - leave a message at my talk or if it has hairy things in it - sned it by email - life is interesting - as in the chinese curse - at the moement - my heavy rate of editing might dry up for a while - if I score the paid time so to speak
355:
As you say, all of those things the reviewer used as examples are easily fixed, with the exception of rewriting the prose. But he was just pulling examples out - the article would have to be carefully scrutinized to look for similar errors
418:
you go too far the other way with explanatory phrases &c. it can come across as condescending, like a middle school text book, or too conversational, like you're explaining it to a friend. That's my take on it, anyway. —
346:. If you look at that article, the prose is similar in style to how the C-T prose is written. I like that Orkney article a lot, and I think it would be a good pattern to follow (for style, layout, etc.) for the C-T article.
768:), now working on the pictures. As soon as it is done, will go back to Zapatera en will reduce the text, using the book as reference. Also, FYI, translated the above referenced Palmar Sur article into spanish.--
643:
has a list of projects rather sinisterly says might one day come under its "parentage", which is typical - some anthropologists seem to want to gobble up every other discipline whether they like it or not
366:
couple of the subarticles, I actually wrote the whole thing from scratch, and I would say they are much better in style and prose than the main article. I'd say the one that best exemplifies this is the
222:
devices... Having the basic information about a particular geographical location in place seems to me to be a very important project to work on - one that would bear out good fruit both academic and lay.
191:, which I see you're a member of, perhaps you'd be interested in helping me with that? It would be great to have a more experience editor on board, as I'm still relatively new to proper editing. —
218:
archaeological sites in SE Europe. In my opinion, this should be a very important task - it would provide a groundwork for a lot of use. So, for instance, in such applications as Google Earth or
818:
You're very welcome. Please do feel free to ask me or at WikiProject Archaeology if you have questions about Knowledge's policies etc. in the future (they're convoluted, to say the least...) —
721:, I just happened to be the first person to add something to that one, so I 'created' it. The box does pretty much what it says: marks the article as "within the scope of
661:? I don't really understand the philosophy behind Knowledge categories, but I get the feeling archaeology articles could really benefit from some attention in that area. —
241:
So, if you have any specific things you'd like me to help with (for instance the proto-writing articles merge), I'd love to help out. :) Let's definitely keep in touch. --
367:
825:
751:
737:
308:
298:
658:
488:
Almost every project on Knowledge has goals so as to alert the less alert as to the scope of the project -= I believe removing it is a retrograde step
184:
803:
Hi Joey -- Thank you so much for your help with my first article. I learned much about the process, and from your changes too. I do appriciate it.
764:
Just so you know, I am working at uploading both books in Wikisource, it is going to take some time, but the first one is over half way through (see
425:
404:
322:
286:
265:
245:
198:
812:
687:
668:
615:
594:
552:
517:
495:
461:
790:
777:
711:
581:
448:
699:
342:
much as possible to be jargon-free. What I did was to look into what a Good Article of a similar subject might be, and I found one:
477:
783:
Looking good, keep me posted. Could the pictures be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, so some of them can be used in the articles? —
759:
258:
A map like that would be very useful for a great deal of SE European archaeology articles, I think. Looking forward to it. —
176:
640:
808:
747:
722:
707:
435:
188:
633:
702:
for my article. Thank-you ! Do you know why there is a ??? in importance ? What do these things do ? Thank-you !
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
91:
83:
79:
471:
282:
Thanks. I'm actually getting it out and looking at it again, and I'm quite pleased with how it looks so far. --
478:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:WikiProject_Archaeology&direction=next&oldid=388893263
562:
OK it might not be written in the text - but check it out - almost every project that is surviving the great
315:
see how the wording might suggest that to someone who doesn't know the subject matter. Again, easily fixed. —
796:
804:
743:
703:
380:
as there were supporting reference links included for everything in the main article - as there should be.
765:
38:
304:
took me by surprise (I would have said it wasn't ready by a long shot), but that's all okay. --
472:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:WikiProject_Archaeology&oldid=388893263
599:
Bah - just an old Australian pedant who likes tagging categories :| - I think in the end
8:
797:
718:
693:
684:
612:
578:
514:
492:
445:
343:
156:
219:
52:
17:
773:
742:
Ok, thank you very much. I will do some more work on it if I find more resources.
657:...but say, if you're a categoriser and have a background in anth, maybe you could
166:
401:
305:
283:
242:
173:
51:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
152:
819:
784:
731:
681:
662:
609:
588:
575:
546:
511:
507:
489:
455:
442:
419:
316:
259:
192:
66:
400:
to the C-T articles... Thanks again for your supportive comments, Joey. --
769:
726:
157:
154:
158:
508:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide
659:
help with devising categories for the archaeology articles
574:(I was one of the death project starters ...:( - cheers
454:
I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you're talking about. —
725:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
60:
587:
Thanks very much for the advice. I appreciate it. —
368:Decline and end of the Cucuteni–Trypillian culture
299:Cucuteni-Trypillian article fails GA review
700:Talk:Palmar Sur Archeological Excavations
566::( - is well placed to state the obvious
370:article, which I'm particularly proud of.
14:
49:Do not edit the contents of this page.
25:
506:If you havent, a good walk through
23:
510:might help understand the obvious
24:
837:
189:Knowledge:WikiProject Archaeology
65:
29:
568:in the goals and the scope area
426:16:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
405:12:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
323:06:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
309:00:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
287:21:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
266:16:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
246:13:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
199:07:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
177:03:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
13:
1:
826:13:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
813:00:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
760:Zapatera and Ometepe Articles
7:
791:14:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
778:14:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
752:20:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
738:20:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
712:19:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
688:15:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
669:15:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
616:15:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
595:15:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
582:15:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
553:14:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
518:14:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
496:14:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
462:14:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
449:14:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
10:
842:
698:Hi ! I see you created a
436:It might not seem obvious
63:
641:WikiProject Anthropology
805:Timothy Hawkins-Heathco
744:Nooba booba sooba looba
723:WikiProject Archaeology
704:Nooba booba sooba looba
634:WikiProject Archaeology
766:Nicaraguan Antiquities
639:. I also noticed that
42:of past discussions
44:for the period 2010
798:Michael J. O'Kelly
717:All articles have
344:Prehistoric Orkney
220:Augmented reality
164:
163:
59:
58:
53:current talk page
18:User talk:Joe Roe
833:
822:
787:
734:
665:
638:
632:
591:
549:
458:
422:
319:
262:
195:
185:inject some life
159:
69:
61:
33:
32:
26:
841:
840:
836:
835:
834:
832:
831:
830:
820:
801:
785:
762:
732:
696:
663:
636:
630:
606:atlantic divide
589:
547:
470:From this diff
456:
438:
420:
317:
301:
260:
193:
169:
160:
155:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
839:
829:
828:
800:
795:
794:
793:
770:Raúl Gutiérrez
761:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
695:
692:
691:
690:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
621:
620:
619:
618:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
523:
522:
521:
520:
501:
500:
499:
498:
483:
482:
481:
480:
474:
465:
464:
437:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
410:
409:
408:
407:
394:
393:
392:
391:
384:
383:
382:
381:
374:
373:
372:
371:
360:
359:
358:
357:
350:
349:
348:
347:
336:
335:
334:
333:
326:
325:
300:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
251:
250:
249:
248:
236:
235:
234:
233:
226:
225:
224:
223:
212:
211:
210:
209:
202:
201:
168:
165:
162:
161:
153:
151:
148:
147:
75:
74:
71:
57:
56:
47:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
838:
827:
823:
817:
816:
815:
814:
810:
806:
799:
792:
788:
782:
781:
780:
779:
775:
771:
767:
753:
749:
745:
741:
740:
739:
735:
728:
724:
720:
716:
715:
714:
713:
709:
705:
701:
689:
686:
683:
678:
677:
670:
666:
660:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
642:
635:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
617:
614:
611:
607:
602:
598:
597:
596:
592:
586:
585:
584:
583:
580:
577:
573:
572:never say die
569:
565:
554:
550:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
519:
516:
513:
509:
505:
504:
503:
502:
497:
494:
491:
487:
486:
485:
484:
479:
476:To this diff
475:
473:
469:
468:
467:
466:
463:
459:
453:
452:
451:
450:
447:
444:
427:
423:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
406:
403:
398:
397:
396:
395:
388:
387:
386:
385:
378:
377:
376:
375:
369:
364:
363:
362:
361:
356:throughout...
354:
353:
352:
351:
345:
340:
339:
338:
337:
330:
329:
328:
327:
324:
320:
313:
312:
311:
310:
307:
288:
285:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
267:
263:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
247:
244:
240:
239:
238:
237:
230:
229:
228:
227:
221:
216:
215:
214:
213:
206:
205:
204:
203:
200:
196:
190:
186:
181:
180:
179:
178:
175:
150:
149:
146:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
72:
70:
68:
62:
54:
50:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
802:
763:
697:
605:
600:
571:
567:
563:
561:
439:
302:
170:
87:
78:
64:
48:
43:
37:
727:Archaeology
36:This is an
821:Joseph Roe
786:Joseph Roe
733:Joseph Roe
719:talk pages
694:Palmar Sur
664:Joseph Roe
590:Joseph Roe
548:Joseph Roe
531:talk page.
457:Joseph Roe
421:Joseph Roe
402:Saukkomies
318:Joseph Roe
306:Saukkomies
284:Saukkomies
261:Joseph Roe
243:Saukkomies
194:Joseph Roe
174:Saukkomies
73:Archives:
167:Hi there
39:archive
601:scope
564:quiet
187:into
16:<
809:talk
774:talk
748:talk
708:talk
685:Suro
682:Satu
613:Suro
610:Satu
579:Suro
576:Satu
515:Suro
512:Satu
493:Suro
490:Satu
446:Suro
443:Satu
144:2024
140:2023
136:2022
132:2021
128:2020
124:2019
120:2018
116:2017
112:2016
108:2015
104:2014
100:2013
96:2012
92:2011
88:2010
84:2009
80:2008
208:it.
824:,
811:)
789:,
776:)
750:)
736:,
710:)
667:,
644::D
637:}}
631:{{
593:,
551:,
460:,
424:,
321:,
264:,
197:,
142:,
138:,
134:,
130:,
126:,
122:,
118:,
114:,
110:,
106:,
102:,
98:,
94:,
90:,
86:,
82:,
807:(
772:(
746:(
706:(
55:.
46:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.