Template:Did you know nominations/Stoner Site

Stoner Site, Allison-Lamotte culture

 * ... that the Stoner Site has been named Illinois' purest Allison-Lamotte archaeological site?
 * Reviewed: Gradislav Vojšić
 * Comment: See the Stoner talk page for my explanation of an oddity in the text. By my count, Stoner is expanded approximately 15.5x, going from 449 characters to 7030, while Allison-Lamotte is a new creation approximately 3000 characters in length. Created/expanded by Nyttend (talk).  Self nom at 04:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)



ALT1 ... that the Stoner Site was once identified as the most representative archaeological site in Illnois of the Allison-Lamotte culture?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Both articles are new enough and long enough (expansion/newly created).  One QPQ done.  Two preferred but not going to dicker around on this tonight. Both articles have images, each with an acceptable copyright tag. Hook is properly formatted. Hooked fact is found in Stoner Site when it says "the Illinois Archaeological Survey deemed it the state's purest example of the culture".
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Offline materials were not  plagiarised and support cited text.
 * The source dates to 1976. Do we have a more recent citation to support it still having this status 30+ years later?  --LauraHale (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What status? I'm not making any claims about the present.  Moreover, what I'm reading in Muller makes me think that there's been no significant research at Allison-Lamotte sites in recent years; the only site that seems to be cited more often is Daugherty-Monroe, and that's in Indiana.  Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The use of the perfect tense does indeed commonly make a claim about the present; cf. "was once the"; also, does "cultural purity" sound a little like a product of the Ahnenerbe? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Was once the" means that it no longer is, and in this case, I am not making a claim about the present; if I were, I would have changed my verb tense. If you had read my "moreover" statement, you would understand that a newer source backs up what I wrote.  Your allegations of racism are quite inappropriate; if you had read the article, you would understand that it's purer because there's no significant presence of other cultures at the site — A-L isn't mixed with other cultural materials, unlike the culture's other sites in the state.  Please restrict your comments to approving the article or to identifying actual errors that I can fix.  Nyttend (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I do understand what you're trying to say; 'twas no accusation of racism, simply of linguistic infelicities with nauseating nuances; is that really the term used in your source? How about, to help resolve: Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because this analysis is substantially later; the cited source is the one making the analysis, not anything before it. Moreover, neither the article nor the sources say what you've proposed: nowhere have I seen a statement that it's more representative than others (indeed, factors such as the absence of shellfish make it very different from many other A-L sites!), and because the source doesn't discuss the purity of Stoner versus the purity of Indiana sites, the article doesn't either.  Finally, your inferences are greatly at variance with the truth on the ground; please stop obstructing this nomination with irrelevant race-related complaints.  Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

ALT2 ... that the Stoner Site was once identified as the most monolithic archaeological site of the Allison-Lamotte culture in Illinois?
 * How about "monolithic" per archaeological culture? Monoculture doesn't quite work unfortunately; what words does your source use? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Kindly heed WP:REDACT. The source document uses "pure", as I already told you; when the terminology of the source gets the meaning across, there is no need to bowdlerise it.  Moreover, "monolithic" in the bit you mention means that the culture was though to be uniform; the point here is that there aren't multiple cultures that vary widely.  To satisfy you, I've also reviewed the Alang-Alang (TV series) nomination.  Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Some one want to wade in and give a second opinion? --LauraHale (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that "pure" does not mean "representative" or "monolithic", just uncontaminated by other cultures. I cannot see a racial implication.  Even if there were one, I am not sure that would be a problem - the hook is basically a quote.  But I am uncomfortable with a hook that relies on a source I can't see.  How about ALT3 below?

ALT3 ... that unlike other people of the Allison-Lamotte culture, the occupants of the Stoner Site ate very little shellfish?
 * That is backed up by a visible source cited by both articles, and in my view is as likely as the other suggested hooks to get clicked. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd hate to use a minor detail for the hook, as in ALT3. Try this:
 * ALT4 ... that the Stoner archaeological site in Illinois is unusual for its lack of evidence of substantial occupation by any people other than the Allison-Lamotte culture? --Orlady (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But that's so much longer, and shorter is better at DYK. Remember that offline sources are just as good as online, and usually are better.  Nyttend (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, except for the shellfish (which is a minor detail in the article), the other hooks proposed here had the problems that they (1) relied on superlatives that couldn't be supported because they were based on old sources that might no longer be applicable and/or (2) used words (e.g., "pure" and "monolithic") subject to serious misinterpretation. My suggestion of 'unusual for its lack of evidence of substantial occupation by any people other than" is a more verbose statement of the special attribute that you were trying to describe with words like "purest". And even with "extra" words like archaeological and Illinois, it's still well below the limit for DYK -- and it's a dual hook. --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea with a hook is to get readers curious enough to click on it without seriously irritating most of those who do. The hook does not have to cover a key point in the article.  Still, to me the distinguishing feature of the Stoner Site compared to others like it is the lack of shellfish.  What did this group have against shellfish? Allergies maybe? Read on... Aymatth2 (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer, where possible, that a hook should attract readers to an article where they will learn more about the topic in the hook, instead of having them cuss out DYK after discovering that the article they were drawn to has no additional information about the hook fact. In this case, the source also has no additional relevant information. It says that the Daugherty-Monroe site had large amounts of shellfish, but the Stoner site had virtually none. (Furthermore, note that the article is misleading in suggesting that the lack of shellfish use is a contrast with other "comparable nearby sites". In fact, the source states it as a contrast with only one other site, i.e., the Daugherty-Monroe site. Thus, the hook fact isn't really supported by the source.) --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg: Lengths, dates, ALT4 checked out, good to go; (v. interesting, especially about the non-mortuary mound-building), thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)