Template:Did you know nominations/Mississippian copper plates

Mississippian copper plates
Created/expanded by Heironymous Rowe (talk). Self nom at 11:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that although no Mississippian copper plates (pictured) have ever been found at Cahokia, it is the only Mississippian culture site where a copper workshop has been located by archaeologists?


 * Am currently reviewing this nomination. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Article copied into mainspace from userspace sandbox at 23:15, 4 May 2012. Nominated at 11:45, 9 May 2012, so created within five days of the nomination. Article at the time of nomination (and creation) is long enough (over 25,000 characters). The hook is 179 characters and meets the formatting guidelines. The hook fact is present in and cited in the article. The proposed hook image is used in the article. Still need to check the article sources, the hook source, the image licensing, and the general condition of the article (which looks excellent at first glance, no tags and looks well-written). My one concern is that the suggested hook picture won't work that well at 100x100px. Would be better to have a crop focusing on just one of the copper plates. Will check back here in a bit after reading the article and looking through the available sources. Carcharoth (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC) The hook image discussed here is a different one to the one now showing, as it was replaced. See page history. Carcharoth (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Individual versions of each of the 3 plates in that illustration are also available if one of them would work better. All three are also used in the article in individual sections. Licensing should not be a problem, I licensed them all under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license when I uploaded them to Commons. Let me know if a specific cropping of one of the images would work better, I'd rather use my original psd document to create it and upload a new file. And thanks for taking the time to review this!  He  iro  23:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Up to you which image to use. You do need to remember to add "(pictured)" to the hook. Talking about the hook, I've just read this source (used to cite the corresponding sentence in the article), and the bit in the hook saying "it is the only Mississippian culture site where a copper workshop has been located by archaeologists" is fine, but I can't find anything in the source explicitly saying that " no Mississippian copper plates have ever been found at Cahokia". Can you fix or explain that? Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Added another cite, see page 7 here (pages aren't marked though, unless you read whole thing you have to count down) and pages 464 and 472 here  He  iro  00:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will check that tomorrow, on a computer not as slow as this one. Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Have now looked at those sources, and they support the hook cite, though I'm still not 100% on the exact phrasing as it seems to simplify things a bit. Could you propose an alternative hook in case others agree an alternative would be better? Carcharoth (talk) 06:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Finished reading the article. Looks good, though a bit of copyediting would pick up a few things (not needed for DYK), such as 'manufactored', a few missing hyphens, and 'rattlesnakes' (missing apostrophe). But not much to nit-pick about. I do still need to open up more of the sources (where available) and check the phrasings used in the article and the sources. No time to do that tonight, but will do that tomorrow. Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did not have time to check all the sources (and some not freely available), but the spot-checks I carried out looked OK. Hopefully others will have time to do a couple more spot-checks as well. Image license is fine (though it is now an illustration, not a photograph, there may be some quibbles about that - is the illustration a derivative of a photograph or a derivative of someone else's illustration? Personally, I preferred the photographs.). Looks good to go. Final comment: some of the documents cited are very large pdf files, and page numbers are not cited. It would help to cite page numbers when referencing multi-page documents - not needed for DYK, but something for future editing. Carcharoth (talk) 06:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg, based on the above. Carcharoth (talk) 06:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)