Talk:Tell Brak

Deleted external links
External link or links have recently been deleted by User:Calton as "horrible Tripod pages which add little information, are full of ads, and fail WP:EL standards." No better external links were substituted. Readers may like to judge these deleted links for themselves, by opening Page history. --Wetman 15:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Agricultural Explansion
Since Göbekli Tepe agriculture invention, around 3000 years were required to create an "agricultural pack of tools, methods, seeds & animals" to create a successful model to expand Worldwide, in 6000 b.C. (carbon check), the farmers were already in the Danube - Carpathian Mountains cross.

--188.171.57.108 (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

First City Tools




Oates excavations
Is it true it was run by the Institute of Archaeology in London? I was lectured at Cambridge by Joan Oates in 1982-3 about the site when she was a faculty member at Cambridge - I thought it was a Cambridge dig then. 62.232.130.11 (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Alas this article is not as well sourced as it could be. Anyway, it says "The purpose of this article is to provide a brief stratigraphic summary of the 14 seasons of excavations at Tell Brak from 1976 to 1993, under the auspices of the Institute of Archaeology University of London, and more recently, the McDonald Institute of the University of Cambridge." in "Oates, Joan, and David Oates. “Tell Brak: A Stratigraphic Summary, 1976-1993.” Iraq, vol. 56, 1994, pp. 167–76". Hopefully that clarifies things for you.Ploversegg (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Article
I understand that this is listed as a GA article so I'm being gentle with it but the Archaeology part of things needs some work, especially better sources than a couple pages in Bryce (2009). Don't worry, I don't plan to mod the shiny parts, just the stuff pertaining to excavation/archaeology of the site. If there is a problem, speak up. We can work something out.Ploversegg (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yea the excavation section wasnt a strong point of this article. It just doesnt interest me much so I didnt expand on it and I believe this is normal since we edit because we like to not because we have to or are paid to do it. So what you are doing is great.. maybe one day we can bring this to FA. I would just be careful with cluttering. Many sources are important but if they all support the same point then the most recent or the best quality source should be used.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

And I lack interest in society/culture, really much in political stuff. It all seems to somehow work out in the end. Agreed on the clutter. Thats one reason I like a healthy Further Reading section. It gives me a place to move excess refs to without feeling like I am losing information down a black hole. And to stash new sources for a possible use as upgrades.Ploversegg (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I am done poking things archaeological. If you see anything I broke, feel free. :-) If you ever decide to go for FA on Brak, I will, if you wish and I am available, pitch in.Ploversegg (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Table of Contents is much too long
A TOC is good but you CAN have too much of a good thing. The current TOC is over a page long with thirty five (35) lines. Sectioning is good but too much section is not so good. Best not to make the granularity overly fine.Ploversegg (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But each section serve a purpose. Combining many sections together does not make sense. Combining for example the Nagar kingdom with the Akkadian period.. why? A TOC is not good or bad. It serves a purpose and has a function to ease navigating the article. It is also hidden so its not really affecting anthing
 * Mentioning every single archaeological period is excessive though (when we have other designations. Example: we dont need a Middle Bronze section heading for Mari's period or an Late Bronze for Mitanni.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)