Talk:Mater Matuta

Wiki Education assignment: Roman Religion
— Assignment last updated by EtruscanMayhem (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Photo needing citation
I am unable to find the piece identified as Mater Matuta. It is on display in the British museum and identified only as a mother goddess. Possibly a different photo that can be identified can replace it WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * other photos that could be confirmed and cited have replaced the former WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The photos that replaced the unidentifiable one came from Wikimedia. WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

review of classification
User:Cynwolfe can you please review the recent additions to this article to determine if it can be re-classified? WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The expansion is a good step. I think the section "Identities" needs some copyediting in the following areas:
 * Revise instances of non-encyclopedic tone such as "it is prudent" (which imports an unneeded moral or ethical value) and "we learn further" (who is this "we" speaking to us?).
 * Organize focal points by paragraphing—it's a long block of text for readers to navigate, especially if the article is consulted on a phone.
 * Try to include a couple more sources—the single article from PBSR cited for that section is a very good source, but in my opinion, the use of a single source for a whole section of that length and at that level of conceptual complexity indicates that the article remains at start class.
 * Mater Matuta is one of those obscure religious entities who is intriguing to research, so these comments are very much intended to encourage! Cynwolfe (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you so much for the feedback. I will take the suggestions and edit accordingly WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Cynwolfe. I have added temple sections and addressed your recommendations in the restructured associations sections. The deleted inappropriately cited section has been totally reworked and appropriate citations added. I hope you find my work satisfactory and other editors find it worthy of not only re-evaluating this "start" classification but also removing the tag placed at the time before my current improvements. Thank you WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * User:AirshipJungleman29
 * Hopefully this amended section addresses the tag WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

revisions
As a student I am trying to navigate the steep learning curve. I have in good faith made revisions and hope this attempt meets the standard. Thank You WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Non-free tag
Starting this discussion here after getting a ping on 's talk page.

I noticed that you added the non-free tag in Special:Diff/1189814097. I'm presently not able to view deleted content, so I can't see the sort of thing that you removed in this edit, but I'm wondering if you're able to take another look and see if the edits since the tag was placed has addressed your concerns regarding the close paraphrasing. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 20:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * From the sources I have surveyed, I think the CLOP issue is gone. However, I have replaced the tag with a copyedit needed tag because much of what has been added is either not coherent English or not supported by the sources, or both.
 * Take the following sentence: "The first temple was destroyed, and a second temple replaced it. Evidence at the time the city was sacked by the Romans in 377 BCE, and 347 BCE was there had been a couple revisions and a rebuilding increasing it in size."
 * Notwithstanding that there are at least two grammar mistakes, the information is not verified in the cited source. This does not say that the first temple was destroyed, only that it was replaced twice, not once. Then, the Romans did not attack the city in both 377 and 347 BC, only the latter; the first was the Latins. I do not know whether the second half of the last sentence is duplicating the first sentence, or making something up. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am did the best I could. I guess other editors will have to take over. WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am at a loss. WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been busy with some other things over the holidays and all, and am only now responding to your ping, but I hope you don't become discouraged. I'm somewhat perplexed by the accusation of copyright violation due to "close paraphrasing" (of a cited source?). You aren't committing plagiarism if you cite a source and either quote a minimal amount of directly (in quotation marks) or paraphrase it, closely or loosely. Otherwise, how do you use sources accurately without adding (in the Wikipedia sense) the original research of your own views, conclusions, and opinions? Wikipedia is all about compiling sources..
 * A charge of plagiarism should be accompanied by specific examples of text quoted verbatim without quotation marks and without a citation, or examples of text that paraphrases but does not cite a source. That said, I haven't examined the sources cited here, so I may be misunderstanding the objection. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting back to this. I am currently working with someone with more copy editing experience to re-work the Temples section as this seems to be what is most problematic, My class is over but there are people still willing to help WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

the Temple section
the Satricum section was given an overhaul. Rewritten, copyedited, citations added. WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * User:AirshipJungleman29, Multiple editors have advised me on correcting this. Hopefully you find this attempt satisfactory. WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)