Talk:The Dig (novel)

Statement by compiler of article in present form (25 May 2007)

This article was not prepared as part of any Wikiproject, but in order to provide a clear and publicly-available statement as to the differences between the facts of the 1938-1939 Sutton Hoo excavation (and those involved in it), and the narrative purporting to represent those facts which is contained in the novel of this name, newly published. The template and evaluation below have been added on the assumption that this is merely a descriptive article, whereas in fact it is an analytical and critical one comparing a set of facts with a set of fictions. The evaluation contained in the template is therefore irrelevant to the purpose of the article as it was written. Dr Steven Plunkett 18:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Any article may fall within the interest area of a Wikiproject, another obvious one for this novel would be WP:ARCHAEO Archaeology. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by another wikipedia user

Thanks for trying to offer an interesting article, however Wikipedia doesn't allow articles about opinions... even if your opinion might be right. This is an encyclopedia, and it has to maintain no one's point of view. I hope that makes sense? If not, please let me know. As it is, this article needs a lot of chopping to become NPOV.Nesnad 17:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is heavily based on original research. How did this ever make it to DYK? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to the last statement above, could I respectfully ask why you call this 'original research'? Obviously each User who writes an article does so (normally) on the subject of something they have interest and familiarity with. My knowledge, in this case, happens to be in-depth in Sutton Hoo excavation history (based on reading the written sources, which are mainly in print, and which I have cited as sources). For the purposes of this article, it also includes knowledge of a recently-published novel which appears to present that story in a historical or quasi-historical way. It is not therefore 'original research' for me to present the differences between the one and the other, both from published sources, but rather it is what one should expect from a WP editor in compiling an article from published materials. Nor, if those sources are fairly compared and contrasted, is it strongly POV, but in key respects made of statements which are plainly and verifiably factual. I agree that some matter should be pruned out but (as the author of what was originally written) I would uphold that is is NPOV and that it is not 'original research', unless you mean to say that Wikipedia may not include 'original observation', which is not the same thing. If every statement in a wikipedia article, and every connected thread of sequential statements, were only such as already appear elsewhere in the same form, there would be no need for Wikipedia at all. Of course there is a creative aspect to the compilation of Wikipedia articles, and I don't believe that this article has overstepped the bounds of it. I'd be very glad to hear anyone's rationale contra this, or indeed in agreement with it. Possibly the main objection can be removed by resiting this text to an article called 'Sutton Hoo Fictions' and leaving a stub for a more conventional description of this novel (within the Novel Project Contextualization perameters) at the present site name, including links to a new article? Any comments on that? Dr Steven Plunkett 01:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It does sound as though there could be two articles - here trying to get out. One about the novel itself. It's content, publication, success (or otherwise), review and critical reation to. And maybe another about the specific treatment of the fiction in contracts to the history of the dig. However that element could easily be a "section" within a wider more general article about the novel. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Another seperate point is that here at Wikipedia the need to avoid Original Research is seen as a major plank of doctrine. Extraordinary difficult to achieve, especially for specialists, which does seem somewhat counterintuitive. In other words every article on any subject should effectively be a compilation of fact and opinion from verifiable and referenced sources. The more analysis or opinion that an article contains the greater need to demonstrate such verifiability. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to fair criticism above of 'research' in the former article, and in view of its disproportionate length, I have pruned out much unnecessary detail and specialist matter and reduced the statement of 'altered information'. Hope this may also improve the NPOV situation? Dr Steven Plunkett 09:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured on BBC Radio 4's A Good Read

The Dig was chosen by Sue McGregor as her 'good read' on A Good Read on Radio 4 on Tuesday 19 October 2010. Listen Again for ten days here. It's in the final third of the programme. 86.134.92.68 (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Dig (novel)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Statement by compiler of article in present form (25 May 2007) == This article was not prepared as part of any Wikiproject, but in order to provide a clear and publicly-available statement as to the differences between the facts of the 1938-1939 Sutton Hoo excavation (and those involved in it), and the narrative purporting to represent those facts which is contained in the novel of this name, newly published. The above template and evaluation has been added on the assumption that this is merely a descriptive article, whereas in fact it is an analytical and critical one comparing a set of facts with a set of fictions. The evaluation contained in the template is therefore irrelevant to the purpose of the article as it was written. Dr Steven Plunkett 18:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)