User talk:Trip732
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Trip732, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Elysia and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Not adding footnotes correctly
[edit]Hi Trip732, with your creation of Rose Cottage Cave I noticed you did not add inline citations. Please review our training on how to add inline citations. Also please note that reliable sources have to be published. Therefore, an unpublished MS thesis is not considered a reliable source and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Thanks, Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Trip732 and Elysia (Wiki Ed)! Great work on the creation of the page, and Elysia thanks for the help. I just wanted to say one quick thing, which is that theses and dissertations are always described as "unpublished," even the final versions that have been approved by the university in question. We cite them all of the time in academic literature - they are considered just as reliable as "published" books and journal articles, because they've essentially been peer-reviewed by all of the senior academics on a candidate's committee. It strikes me as really odd that Wikipedia does not allow them to be cited. Ninafundisha (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- Ninafundisha, the official Wikipedia policy on dissertations and theses is:
Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
- Elysia (Wiki Ed), thanks for the info! Trip732, I hope these instructions make sense - we can, in fact, cite "unpublished" dissertations and theses on Wikipedia, but must use caution as we would with all potential references.Ninafundisha (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Ninafundisha, the official Wikipedia policy on dissertations and theses is:
Peer-Review Rose Cottage Cave
[edit]Hello,
I am not very familiar with the subject myself; however, there are a few suggestions I have that may improve your article.
1. Since you mentioned the environment, you may be able to go into more detail about the geographical context.
2. Maybe you could further elaborate on the 'Cultural innovation' portion, what do the deposits that were discarded signify as far as symbolic use?
3. Under 'Cultural innovations' you seem to be missing a citation, starting from "Sediments" until the end. Where does that information come from?
4. If I recall correctly, only the first word in headings should be capitalized. Therefore, it should be "Technological innovation" and "Cultural innovation."
5. You may be able to individually extend your information on each of the Howeisons Poort phases.
6. Another section concerning the excavations would be great!
Other than that, your article is article well-organized. Furthermore, your introduction is complete and to the point. Great work so far!