User talk:JamesZD online/Phenomenology (archaeology)

Still work in progress. More work needed

--JamesZD online (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

From User:Carwil
So this is off to a strong start, and is well-organized and very thoroughly referenced. Here are some suggestions: Good luck!--Carwil (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The lead section should be revised per WP:LEAD. In particular, it's desirable to have a first sentence that tells us what phenomenology is rather than what it does. The lead should describe the content below.
 * Yes, do the things you promise in the 3rd and 4th sections.
 * "Takes umbrage" feels unencyclopedic. See WP:SAID: the community advice among Wikipedians is to flatly present the views of others rather than try too hard to characterize them, since many words—even "complaints"—tend to til the reader to believe that these views are either justified or unjustified.
 * Imagine that your reader may start by reading the lead section and then jumping to any later section. This may mean being slightly redundant with telling the reader who Tilley is, for example.
 * Wikipedia doesn't do section transitions like "In contrast to this," at the beginning of sections.
 * Notable applications: It would be really helpful if one of the example showed how a phenomenological approach helped archaeologists understand something that they couldn't otherwise.

Peer Review 2022
Hello reader!

Thank you for coming to read the rough draft of my article. I hope you enjoy and maybe learn something. I think I will probably end up adding a little to the Overview and Methodology sections, as they feel a little short in comparison to the length of the article overall and I am certain there is more to say there, but I will need to do a little more reading first.

Thanks for leaving feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesZD online (talk • contribs) 03:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Peer review 2022
There's a lot of great content here and the presentation feels largely neutral and encyclopedic. Several of my comments from 2019 still apply, especially on filling out the lead, stating full names in later sections as if the reader began there etc.

The one structuring issue I see is that Tilley takes up more of this article than is probably due. Other researchers taking phenomenological approaches in archaeology are relegated to an "applications" section. If this is an approach with a reasonably wide following, you need to show that by reference to multiple scholars practicing it. "Extensions…" section does this, but its title makes it feel like real phenomenology is only what Tilley is doing.

My biggest advice, though, is to lay out a three paragraph lead section that summarizes the key aspects of the topic and also provides citations that prove its notability. See Manual of Style/Lead section for parameters and advice.

Carwil (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Peer review 2022
→ Overall very well written and great scope of the topic. I would add another references (if there is any) beyond Tilly, in some instances it feels like it is about the perspective of Tilly than of Phenomonlogy in Archeology. One or two other references following Tilly's work will definitly change that tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanheb Ahaw (talk • contribs) 21:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)