Template:Did you know nominations/Kappa V Archaeological Site
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Kappa V Archaeological Site
[edit]
- ... that more than half of the Kappa V Archaeological Site (flooding pictured) has been destroyed by wave wash erosion?
- Reviewed: Sendai River
- Comment: Hook depends on the penultimate sentence of the "Geographic context" section.
Created/expanded by Nyttend (talk). Self nom at 21:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- can you include the words "more than half" in the article? Its not clear to me reading it quickly that the hook fact is in the article Victuallers (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Not needed and not helpful: the fact that large amounts of damage have been done is sufficient for the intro, and "more than half" would be excessive simplification for the chunk whereon the hook is based. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- The hook needs to be in the article. Secretlondon (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
detailed article, offline sources accepted AGF. I would be interested in a date or name of a period - since the picture doesn't give a clue, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Secretlondon, once you read the article, you will see that the hook fact appears immediately before the third citation to page 2 of reference 2. Meanwhile, the name of the period is "Terminal Archaic"; the sources don't give any dates or period names more specific than that. You'll notice that the related Epsilon II Archaeological Site was passed through DYK without any dates or anything more specific than Terminal Archaic for a period, and two of my last four archaeological DYKs (Hovey Lake and Ashworth) have gone through without mentioning date or culture in the hook. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Now this new term would make the whole thing interesting to me (as a reader) and I would click, because without it, I might have thought "some average archeological site disappeared, who cares? - what is pictured? nothing". I suggest:
- ALT1:
... that more than half of the Kappa V Archaeological Site from the terminal archaic period has been destroyed by wave wash erosion (pictured)?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)- Why? Remember, shorter is better, and its period of origin is completely irrelevant to its destruction. There are tons of Archaic sites (the thing about this one is that it was larger and better preserved than most), so there's no benefit and an actual negative aspect to your proposal, in part because you've added an extra link that is going to distract many readers. You'll note that the photo is a waterside image, showing part of the site underwater; your typical reader should observe a connection between "destroyed by water" and a shoreline picture. Finally, let me remind you that at DYK we put (pictured) after the link to the article that's the subject of the DYK; you're suggesting to the reader that wave wash erosion is the actual subject and that we accidentally bolded the wrong link. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Why? Remember, shorter is better, and its period of origin is completely irrelevant to its destruction. There are tons of Archaic sites (the thing about this one is that it was larger and better preserved than most), so there's no benefit and an actual negative aspect to your proposal, in part because you've added an extra link that is going to distract many readers. You'll note that the photo is a waterside image, showing part of the site underwater; your typical reader should observe a connection between "destroyed by water" and a shoreline picture. Finally, let me remind you that at DYK we put (pictured) after the link to the article that's the subject of the DYK; you're suggesting to the reader that wave wash erosion is the actual subject and that we accidentally bolded the wrong link. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Secretlondon, once you read the article, you will see that the hook fact appears immediately before the third citation to page 2 of reference 2. Meanwhile, the name of the period is "Terminal Archaic"; the sources don't give any dates or period names more specific than that. You'll notice that the related Epsilon II Archaeological Site was passed through DYK without any dates or anything more specific than Terminal Archaic for a period, and two of my last four archaeological DYKs (Hovey Lake and Ashworth) have gone through without mentioning date or culture in the hook. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not needed and not helpful: the fact that large amounts of damage have been done is sufficient for the intro, and "more than half" would be excessive simplification for the chunk whereon the hook is based. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
