Wikipedia:Peer review/Tel Kabri/archive1

Tel Kabri

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's come along very well and want to see what else can be done to improve it. It would be great if this could get to GA, A, and eventually FA status. It's in Social Sciences because it's more a prehistoric archaeological site than a historical one.

Thanks, Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Tevet 5774 17:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

Given the length of the article, the lead could stand to be quite a bit longer
The ToC, on the other hand, is quite long, with lots of small sections - consider some consolidation
Any chance of a couple more images?
Take a look at the HarvErrors script; you have a number of disconnected references
File:AcreNE1799.jpg: per the licensing tag, "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States"
"located on the grounds of the kibbutz" - should specify which one, as this isn't explained until Archaeology section
Spell out units like "km" in prose, and provide conversions using {{convert}}
Explain in the article what is meant by "EBA collapse".
Keep in mind that many readers will be non-specialists, and we should aim to make the text fairly accessible. The Archaeology section is particularly dense
"an MBA I palace—was identified beneath the MBA II palace. The remains of the earlier MBA I palace, beneath the MBA II palace" - repetitive
" since 1957 when Late Neolithic vessels were discovered there in 1956" ?
What do the asterisks in citations mean?
Check work name for Burrows
Don't include large categories like Category:Archaeology of Israel when subcategories like Category:Archaeological sites in Israel are already there. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thank you very much for the thorough go-over! I have some questions as well as answers. Some of Brian's comments made some things a bit clearer, but I've maintained what I originally wrote just in case my understanding is off.

Any thoughts on how the intro could be expanded and the ToC condensed? It'd be great if there was a way to keep the subsections, but not have every subsection listed in the ToC (like individual years) because it does look bulky.

It's possible to use a template like {{TOC limit}} to change how the ToC appears, or you can replace the header code with other formatting. Really, though, I agree with Brian that the current structure is suboptimal. As to the lead, perhaps add a sentence or two further summarizing each of the Etymology, Geography, and History sections? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images could be tricky. I never really take many photos myself and I don't want to bother Cline about it.
Does it matter that I added the Acre image while in the UK? Does the requirement pertain to the editor who added the image or is it something else? (if it's the latter, I don't get why it's US-specific) Also, how do I add that to the page?

No, the requirement is because Wikipedia follows US law first and foremost (and Commons requires that images be free/PD in both the US and the country of origin of the image). You can add to that page by clicking here. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first mention of the kibbutz of Kabri and its relation to the site is in the Etymology section.
The EBA Collapse is something I'll briefly explain there - a collapse of societies in the Eastern Mediterranæan at the end of the EBA- but it's also something that deserves its own article hence the lack of a hyperlink. The Bronze Age Collapse is named improperly as it deals with just the Late Bronze Age Collapse. However, That's something I'll tackle there.
What do you think could be done to make the text more accessible? I'm around this kind of stuff enough that I might not be able to readily spot terminology that would throw people for a loop.

Is it at all possible for you to have someone else read through the article with you in-person? I find that grabbing a random friend or colleague often helps me quickly identify what might be too dense in my own articles. If not, try to make sure that all concepts are explained well enough that you don't really have to remember anything beyond the article as you read. Also think about using vocabulary that an intelligent high-schooler might be expected to understand. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The asterisks are used in the field reports because they are in Hebrew and English. The English begins from the left cover and the Hebrew from the right cover. So you have Page 1 at one end and Page 1* at the other in a different language. It's just how they laid it out.
What do you mean by "Burrows?"

"Burrows, Leah (22 November 2013)" - I really don't think the publication is about brandies, but Brandeis. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other issues I shall do my best to fix.

Thank you very much again! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 8 Shevat 5774 19:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

Most of the points which I noted during my first runthrough have been mentioned by Nikki, above, but I'd like to reemphasise some of them;

Structure: although apparently crammed with information, the article gives the impression of being in the form of preliminary notes rather than in final prose form. There are far too many very short subsections, some of which are barely informative, e.g. "1991: Work was carried out in Areas B, C, and D, during the 1991 season". That is the entire subsection. You need to create a proper prose flow, and should abandon all these unwarranted subheadings. Thus "Early work" should be a single undivided section, as should "1986–1993" and "2005-ongoing".
The final sections, under "Site reports", have no text at all, being lists of reports or links to online copies of reports. I am uncertain as to why these are listed here. If they are cited sources, they are presumably listed under "References"
Under "Notes", you should separate citations from what are merely observations or directions. Some of these, incidentally, require citations, e.g. 22, 43, 86, 101 etc
I endorse the view that much of the information will be difficult for non-specialists to understand. Unless I missed something, there is no date information that enables the non-specialist to identify the "EBA" and "MBA" periods. Other statements, such as "inhabited since the Pottery Neolithic" are likewise incomprehensible.

In short, while the subject-matter is potentially very interesting, the article needs considerably more work to bring it into the shape and format of a proper Wikipedia article. I will be happy to look again, when you have addressed some of these points. There are a couple of archaeological FAs that you might wish to look at: Maiden Castle, Dorset and Acra (fortress). Brianboulton (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I suppose I could try doing that, though I'd like to have all the info gathered from the sources before I can make a good clean prose. The sub-sections were all because I was worried about big ugly blocks of text and it was all one undivided section way-back when. That specific 1991 was, regrettably, because of the fact that I didn't have the 1991 report at the time. I've since gotten that report, but I don't think I'll ever be able to find copies of the 1986 or 1987 reports without going into TAUs library this summer.
They were listed there for easy accessibility (finding out what some projects' site reports are called and where they are can be a pain sometimes). Do you think they should be removed or kept and have their purpose being there briefly explained?
What is the way to do that? Like make one section for Notes and one section for Citations?
Ah, I thought that some things were supposed to rely on the information contained in the wikilinked articles. Should there be brief explanations either in-text or in Notes where they won't interrupt the flow of things?

Thank you very much! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 8 Shevat 5774 19:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]