Talk:Archaeological illustration

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Systems Mid‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Visualization.

Small questions on Archeological illustration page

I just went by chance to the tidy Wiki page you did. A few little things:

1) Most black-and-white negatives and photos (although not inkjet) and Kodachrome are highly stable, so no need to imply they are only "considered" as such. However other color slide films besides are often anything but archival. This all leads me to wonder what exactly the current state of practice is.

2) Photography is used for all stages of archeology, so the statement "landscapes as they look now" is too restrictive.

3) Since 3D and virtual reality are new on the scene, those will be the areas where researching current techniques will be most revealing (and where I'd enjoy seeing the article considerably expanded.) In fact, the article itself could fruitfully be four or five times as long. Unfortunately, this isn't my field, so I can't contribute much.

4) I got rather leery of adding photographs after learning how complicated the discussion is about "free use", but...it would be nice if the photos in the article were clear enough to see what is being represented. Also, ha, you'll be delighted to read the Wiki policy on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_description_page

My "approach" to dealing with article photos was been: a) To take my own photographs, b) to keep them small on the Wiki page, and c) to follow along with photo conventions in similar articles. So far, the "worst" that's happened to one of my photos is that another editor reduced the size, so this approach seems to be working.

Keep up the interesting work!

Regards

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re 1: In the UK, colour slide and BW print on acid-free photographic paper are seen as the only archive stable formats see: http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/pubs/Archives_Best_Practice.pdf

It seems to be quite a good document although it does mix up its "musts" and "shoulds" making it a bit easy to get away with not following best practice. It is also a bit mixed up when it comes to the digital archive but all in all it is the best document out there at present.

Re 2: True – I have modified it.

Re 3: I would like others in the field to get involved so that the page isn’t just my work. I’m a member of the AAI&S (see article) and I intend to mention in their next newsletter that I have created this stub. What I’m hoping is that members will add much more detail relating to their specific areas of interest.

Re 4: Yes images do seem to be a bit of a nightmare! Thanks for pointing me to the help page. As for better images as 3 above.

Thanks a lot for you interest!

Moglucy (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction/interpretative drawings

A reconstruction of Holt Castle in 1495

Would it be useful to include this video as an example of archaeological reconstruction and interpretation? Disclosure: the reconstruction was funded by the Castle Studies Trust (based on historic documents, plans, and archaeological excavations) for whom I am a trustee. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Archaeological illustration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/node-files/ifa_practice_archives.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921054430/http://www.gag-ifa.org/ to http://www.gag-ifa.org/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=1
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921054430/http://www.gag-ifa.org/ to http://www.gag-ifa.org/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.smallfindsdesign.co.uk/workshop.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]