Draft talk:Necropolis of Amorosi

Autumn 2024 Educational Project Page

This page is part of an Educational Project by students of LIUC, Italy, with a course page at: [1]https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/LIUC_-_Universit%C3%A0_Cattaneo/Digital_Technology_(October_-_December,_2024) . The users of the group are new to the Wikipedia platform, have completed mandatory Training for Students, and are learning to edit following Wikipedia rules. They are open to any advice on improvements of the page in conformity to Wikipedia requirements and guidelines, and any help useful for the enhancement of the page will be gladly accepted. The student Usernames are:

• LIUCAurora
• LIUCFede4
• LiucLeo10
• LiucGio
• LiucGustav07
• LIUCFloor4
• LIUCManuela

Issues or questions can be referred direct to the users or to their tutor @Limelightangel --LiucGio (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC) I changed the captions of the images

Limelightangel (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback 6/11/24

@LIUCAurora, LIUCFede4, LiucLeo10, LiucGio, LiucGustav07, LIUCFloor4, and LIUCManuela:

• note and use the guidelines and good practice on lead (or introductory) sections and look at good practice on other pages. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. See also Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Lead_section
• note conventions on dates, and see the section on Era Stles in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
• ref. 1 is incorrectly formatted
• ref.2 is incorrect (it is not a link to a video)
• Needs an Infobox: find a relevant Infobox template from Wikipedia:List of infoboxes and look to see what similar pages have used. Use this templare correctly. Note that these are templates with rules on how they are used and for acceptable field content/format
• needs acceptable, relevant images
• structure/content: look at similar pages e.g. Woodhenge etc.

Limelightangel (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback 12/11/24

@LIUCAurora, LIUCFede4, LiucLeo10, LiucGio, LiucGustav07, LIUCFloor4, and LIUCManuela:

• given the extensive issues listed here, many repeated from earlier feedback, it is advised to discuss & correctly 'check off' issues where they are listed in Talk when completed to manage these tasks. See Help:Talk
• note and use the guidelines and good practice on lead (or introductory) sections and look at good practice on other pages. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. See also Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Lead_section
• factual accuracy: the lead section states it was 'Excavated in the late 20th century'. If this unsourced statement is correct, later content on the discovery is incorrect
• note conventions on dates, and see the section on Era Stles in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
• references. See Help:Referencing for beginners and similar:
  • you do not link out to external websites from the text, as with the reference for the para. on 'Remarkable Discoveries at the Amorosi Excavation'. Use this source as a number reference, not a link out.
  • refs. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are incorrectly formatted. Use the Cite>Website template correctly and provide as much information as possible in the correct template fields. See Wikipedia:Citing sources
  • ref. 1 & 7 are incorrect - the source is not a video
  • ref. 1 & 7 are duplicated. Use the Named Reference tool to use the same source multiple times in the text but create just a single final reference. See Help:References_and_page_numbers#Named_references and look at other pages that do this.
  • ref. 9 is incorrect. The annonymous author has been put where the missing website name should be. The website is Finestre Sull Arte
  • ref. 10 is incorrect. It duplicates ref. 8. Use the Named Reference tool to use the same source multiple times in the text but create just a single final reference. In this case you need to edit the ref. 8 markup to create a refname tage for it, then reuse this refname tag where you reuse it. See Help:References_and_page_numbers#Named_references and look at other pages that do this.
  • ref. 11 is a poor source (annonymous blog). The bloggers name is omitted (Livius)
  • ref. 12 is incorrect. It omits the author, publisher, date accessed and website name
• sources:
  • at least 3 entire paragraphs and several sentences have missing sources
  • some content has imported subjective style and barely changed text from secondary sources, risking plagiarism and copyright violations
• the page is missing the following page elements. Understand the differences between these sections and types of links used. See how it is done on other pages:
  • See Also section: See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#"See_also"_section
  • External links section. See Help:external links and Wikipedia:External links
  • Categories. See Help:Category
• images:
  • the page needs relevant and acceptable images to support the relevant sections
  • the Infobox template allows and needs a relevant image
  • the two existing images are unacceptable and neither located next to relevant sections:
    • the first has no caption or clear relevance to the topic
    • the second is irrelevant to the page topic
• structure:
  • Discovery and Excavation sections need to come before the actual features
  • poor section and sub-section headings e.g. Key Features, Geography (better as Location), Gender Roles Reflected in Grave Goods, 'Remarkable Discoveries at the Amorosi Excavation'; etc.
  • Excavation should provide information on the archaeological dig (who excavated it, who funded it, etc.) and be different from content on what was found (seperate section)
• use of bold. Use the guidelines available for this and for all other text formats at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting
• poor grammar e.g. 'A preliminary verification of archeological interests brought to light a large area that is located near the Volturno river[4], one of the largest rivers in southern Italy'
• content:
  • extensive duplicate content e.g. in Geography and Discovery; in lead sectionin Discovery and Excavation (uncovered during excavations for a power station in spring 2024); 88 pit tombs; 13,000 square meters; Iron Age; pre-Samnite; 2 large mounds; etc.
  • irrelevant content for page topic e.g. 'The territory of the Telesina Valley includes 20 municipalities'
  • some of the section on History is generic, irrelevant to the page topic and belongs on another page, or needs better page topic relevance.
• linking: See help:linking
  • you link out once, the first time the linked term is used
  • you do not duplicate links out (several occurences)
  • many sections are missing obvious links out
  • avoid ovelinking i.e. unnecessary links out
• style: there are extensive issues with style and vocabulary. See Manual_of_Style#Vocabulary
  • avoid the use of subjective and biased vocabulary e.g. 'this exceptional discovery'; 'a vital tool'; 'Remarkable Discoveries'; 'This significant find'; 'Reminiscent of the princely tombs discovered in Campania'; 'provide essential clues '; 'valuable insights'; 'underscores the site’s '; etc.
  • avoid the use of unnecessary/redundant vocabulary e.g. 'more precisely'; 'The recent excavation'; 'Additionally'; 'in contrast'; ' ' etc.
  • the style for the History and Remarkable discoveries sections is inappropriate

Limelightangel (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I personally changed the lead section but I still can't find out which could be the best version, and I've also followed the link given. can this example be more accurate?

"The Necropolis of Amorosi is an Iron Age burial site located in Amorosi, a town in the Campania region of Italy. Dating from the 9th to the 6th century BCE, the site contains tombs, including in-ground and chambered pits, with grave good such as pottery, jewellery and weapons. These findings provide insight the burial practices, social structure and daily life of pre-Roman Italic cultures." LIUCAurora (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Personal suggestions:

--LIUCAurora (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Discovery before history
• No copy and paste-review your parts, even though you didn't, we totally need to change style and search for a more formal language
• On excavation, pre-samite reference is not well formatted, as the others mentioned before. Ref 2 and 7 have been already been fixed by me
• More sources if possible, we have two review their formetting
• Structure section (see woodhenge)
• Sections are not well subdivided
• No informal language

• http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/70135 add the archeological section that has to be added to “key features of the necropolis” which, btw, can be replaced with “ARCHITECTURE”: further details will be given in tomorrow meeting

Modifying Architecture section:

--LIUCAurora (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC) @LIUCManuela: I'm reviewing your part and eliminating repetition so that we can re-name it "Architecture" and avoid non-important extra information

Personal suggestions:

Location(Geography) before excavation

use a more complex language with precise data. LIUCFede4 (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Images

--LIUCAurora (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)More photos are available on teams

--LiucGio (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC) I've changed the funerary rituals part by paraphrasing and editing errors

Feedback 22/11/24

@LIUCAurora, LIUCFede4, LiucLeo10, LiucGio, LiucGustav07, LIUCFloor4, and LIUCManuela:

• Evaluate the inclusion of an introductory paragraph
  • note and use the guidelines and good practice on lead (or introductory) sections and look at good practice on other pages. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. See also Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Lead_section
• Pay attention to the visual part of the draft: there is excessive spacing between chapters and paragraphs
• Some sentences and words are in bold: evaluate whether to make them subchapters or change the style (e.g. Excavacation chapter)
• Lack of images
• Spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors (e.g. first paragraph of Discovery chapter).
  • See Manual_of_Style#Vocabulary

Greentree97 (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

--LIUCAurora (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)we should put the references to the legends paragraph @LiucLeo10:

--LiucGio (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC) I've changed the funerary rituals part by parsfrasing and editing errors

--LIUCAurora (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)More photos are available on teams

--LIUCAurora (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC) What about this as an intro paragraph? "The Necropolis of Amorosi is an ancient burial site located in Campania, Italy, known for its pre-Roman origins and archaeological significance. Dating back approximately 2,800 years to the Iron Age, the site is associated with the early Italic and Samnite cultures. Excavations conducted in the late 20th century uncovered 88 pit tombs and two large grave mounds, providing valuable insights into the region’s funerary practices and social structures. Artifacts such as pottery, ornaments, and weapons reflect the cultural and ritualistic traditions of the period, spanning the final stages of the Iron Age to the advanced Orientalizing period."

good intro, we can add more infos about the location LiucLeo10 (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I think its a good intro and i think that we can correct some punctuation errors. LIUCFede4 (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

good intro, I personally believe that we can add more about the general backround of the topic LiucGio (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

it doesn't even clearly state it is in the town of Amorosi, or link out to this existing page from the lead. For the 3rd time, See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. See also Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Lead_section Limelightangel (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

--LIUCAurora (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)should I put the first image in the info box in another paragraph?

"This archaeological discovery is of critical importance to the history of our culture." what about adding this citation ?

--LIUCAurora (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)I think it is not a good idea, it's not neutral

there remain fundamental issues with style and relevance throughout the whole page. Limelightangel (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback 25/11/24

@LIUCAurora, LIUCFede4, LiucLeo10, LiucGio, LiucGustav07, LIUCFloor4, and LIUCManuela:

• Talk page: consider editing and restructuring this for clarity before page submission
• images:
  • image captions. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions. They need to be consistent, relevant to the page and identify where they are
  • image locations:
    • the pictures in the Gallery could be better located next to the relevant text sections, particularly as there are only 2 e.g. excavation image in Excavation section;
    • The initial excabvation image should be in Excavation;
    • aerial view of site better in Location, etc.
    • one image should be relocated to the Infobox, the template for which permits this element
• missing section (external links). See Help:External links and similar pages. Understand the difference between these and references.
• structure/content: needs extensive review and changes:
  • it is unclear if the sub-section on 'symbolism of river pebbles and burial practices' and 'Paleolithic Symbolism' has any evidenced or specific relevance to finds at the Amorosi site. If not, it needs removing
  • Architecture and Funerary rites sections both contain content on burials and funeray practices
  • Architecture needs a correct title, not architecture.
  • Location before Discovery; etc.
  • some content is in the wrong sections e.g. 'the recent excavations have revealed numerous tombs surrounding them', 'now undergoing analysis in a laboratory established' and 'The site has become a focal point' are not related to the section Discovery, etc.
  • contradictory information on discovery in Location and Discovery sections
  • location information is in 3 different sections
  • History needs a better title - is this the history of the excavation or the history of the necropolis? and isn't this 'Prehistory'? Irrelevant and generic content here.
• content duplication e.g. location; 88 pit tombs, 13,000 square meters, etc.
• The following text relates to Excavation' not Location: 'Drawing upon the findings obtained during the initial phase of construction, a comprehensive series of archaeological excavations was initiated with the dual objectives of ascertaining the integrity and coherence of the archaeological stratigraphy, as well as evaluating the preservation state of the associated cultural deposits within their contextual framework.
• fundamental issues with content relevance: in History, Archeological Methods, Legends, Location and Funerary rituals sections. Content not on the topic needs removing.The entire section on Legends is irrelevant to the topic and has no source
• style: there are extensive and repetive issues with style and vocabulary. See Manual_of_Style#Vocabulary and Wikipedia: words to watch
  • avoid the use of subjective, inappropriate and biased vocabulary, imported from poor secondary sources e.g. 'steeped in legends'; 'prominently featured'; 'has become a focal point for exploring '; 'placing it at a significant nexus '; 'this pivotal discovery transpired within the confines of the modest town of Amorosi,'; 'encompasses an expanse'; 'array of tombs';'towering monumental mounds'; 'underscoring the scale and potential significance'; 'renowned for its significant hydrological'; 'imposing burial mounds'; 'The sheer scale and deliberate construction'; 'it is highly probable that '; 'offer a fascinating glimpse'; 'etc.
  • avoid the use of unnecessary/redundant vocabulary e.g. 'Although'; 'More specifically,'; 'etc.'

references, , page structure, section titles, style, over-linking and failure to address earlier Talk feedback.

• linking:
  • overlinking. See Help:Linking and Wikipedia:Linking dos and don'ts
  • you link out once, the first time the linked term is used
  • understand the relationship between text links and See Also's. e.g. Samnite is an obvious text link, not a See Also; Macchiabate necropolis is an obvious See Also, but unclear relevance as a text link; etc.
• references:
  • use references correctly, not 'According to the Superintendency for Archaeology, Fine Arts, and Landscape
  • missing reference details, including authors e.g. ref.4, 7, 11.
• use of bold and italics: Use the guidelines available for this and for all other text formats at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting
• conventions on dates/numbers: not 'were probably created around 3000 years ago'. Note conventions on dates, and see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
• much of this feedback is rep[etion of earlier feedback on this Talk page, which has not been understood, systematically address or avoided in later edits. This includes failure to fix basic factual errors in the important lead section e.g. 'Excavated in the late 20th century'.

Limelightangel (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

--LIUCAurora (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Who's in charge of repetitions and general grammar mistakes has to do it asap.

--LIUCAurora (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC) I'm still waiting for the Municipality of Amorosi's answer to have more information and relevant images (these are too generic and not interesting). While we wait (I hope not so long seen that we already waited 1 month), the images that we have have been changed but I'm still placing them

ok, perfect LiucLeo10 (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

ok thank you LiucGio (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

--LIUCManuela (talk) I have edited the text to replace subjective, inappropriate, or biased vocabulary imported from external sources, so you know in case you notice any changes in your sections. 14:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Draft submission

--LIUCAurora (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Draft will be submitted on Wednesday afternoon during our meeting as communicated today.

--LIUCAurora (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)You only link ONCE, stop linking new terms, the correct ones have been already reviewed.

There's still someone who is adding "impersonal terms". We can't use expression like "valuable insights"!

Feedback 2/12/24

Much of the detailed earlier feedback and help resources have not been consistently used, understood or applied:

Image Captions

Note the guidance on image captions: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions. On the draft page:

• 5 images do not clearly mention the actual location as Amorosi, Italy
• 5 images inconsistently refer to the site using different terms: as the necropolis, the Necropolis, Amorosi site, Amorosi Necropolis, the site of Amorosi,
• Poor grammar/caption: 'Volturno River. The Etruscans settled and built the necropolis along its shores'. Try: The Volturno river in northern Italy, location of Etruscan settlements such as the Necropolis of Amorosi
• 'Aerial view of the discovery' is not an 'aerial view', nor the whole 'discovery'
• not 'in the site of Amorosi' - at

Limelightangel (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Other issues

• there remains issues with style: 'lies in its ability to '; 'endeavour'; 'significant roles'; 'safeguarded the heritage. '; 'deepens understanding of pre-Samnite cultures in the region and underscores the site’s strategic importance'; 'Although'; 'as well as'; 'played a crucial role'; 'Fo this reason' (twice); 'this is evident in'; 'These characteristics reveal the social organisation and spiritual beliefs of these ancient Italic populations, which are demonstrated in the Necropolis of Amorosi.' (and no source); 'offers insight into'; 'Additionally,'; 'a key archaeological'; 'Nevertheless, '; 'newly uncovered tombs '; 'are now undergoing'; etc.
• the section heading 'Structure' is unclear and poor
• grammar: 'promted'; 'includning the on at Amorosi. '; 'Etruscans beliefs about life after death, envisioning it as an extension of daily existence'; 'prompted their settlement'; 'This helps reveal '; etc.
• several parts have no sources
• See Also:
  • includes 5 listings with no links
  • includes irrelevant links and links duplicated from the text
• External links includes irrelevant items e.g. 'Researchgate', Adademia, etc., links to Wikipedia, etc.
• consistency: as with the image captions, there is a lack of consistency in how the site is named
• it is unclear how far the site is from the Volturno river
• incorrect sourcing: 'according to a statement from the authorities'; as reported by news outlets

Limelightangel (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

--LIUCAurora (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)correct the contradictory parts we've talked about.

@LiucGustav07 I will look the grammar issue and improve. LIUCFloor4 (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

--LIUCAurora (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Images captions still have to be corrected.

--LiucGustav07 (talk) I looked at gramma, and changed some detials in the text to make more structure.