Talk:Feature (archaeology)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 June 2020 and 3 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trh50. Peer reviewers: MikeJiang131, Meghana Vemulapalli.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
generic feature list
[edit]The idea here is to create a nexus for feature types without straying into specific epoch specialties. so add to kist and create links and pages to go with elements listed or otherwise. My thinking is to tie the generic features into the methodology section via the feature (archaeology) page rather than a archaeological features cat which is not defined for the reader coming into wiki as the meaning of the word feature is not specific to its intended meaning in many articles in archaeology that use it. i wish to delete Category: Archaeological features which is poorly populated by clashing articles eg its not helpful to think of a cropmark as a feature rather than just evidence for them. Boris 22:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have used the term feature professionally for 20 years and only now realise how fudgable a term it is when trying to define its different meanings in relation to archaeology.. I might go for the term several different but allied concepts" which i saw being used elsewhere round here.
Some suggestions I made were that some of the sentences such as the introductory sentence were a little lengthy, and the article would probably benefit from breaking these up and making them more succinct. I also talked about maybe adding something about “Generic Feature Types” in the Lead as well just to give a better overview of the content of the article. In terms of content, what was written under “Generic Feature Types” was written in a list/bullet form. This was easy to follow and to the point. There was a short introduction talking about what these generic feature types were. A suggestion I made was to maybe add short definitions of what each of the bullet points were just to provide more insight, making the article clearer for the reader. Another suggestion I made was to maybe add some pictures of what these “generic feature types” were, just to give some visual context behind the content of the article. There was only one source used for the article, so I suggested maybe expanding this with a few more sources which could even come from defining the bullet points like I mentioned above. Beyond this, I thought the article was informative and to the point, and the reader will clearly get the information they are looking for when clicking on this article. The tone of the article is neutral and I didn’t feel like anything was over or under represented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meghana Vemulapalli (talk • contribs) 01:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)