User talk:Wikiprojectgroup2/Foundation figures

Suggestions 11/28/17
Everything is looking really good! One thing I noticed was maybe you could say what the foundation figure on the sidebar is made of in it's description? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingerterka (talk • contribs) 23:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions 11/28/17
Your page looks great. I just noticed a slight misspelling, I thought you might have wanted to change it yourself but in the first paragraph seem should change to seen. Do all foundation figure look like the one in the picture? I was also wondering if you could add more pictures of the figures if there are more pictures. - Martinhawk —Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions 11/28/2017
The 'History' section looks great and is cited well, but the 'Description' and 'Purpose and Use' sections come up a bit short and lacking in citations. Is much written on these figures? I really think more can be said even about the look of these figures, especially if there are more than one 'type'. Do we have evidence of that in the archaeological record? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmxn (talk • contribs) 01:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions 11/28/17
There is a lot new information, and the page has greatly been improved! Overall, the page looks great but I would suggest maybe adding some footnotes to the sections, the citations are there but it would be nice to know what information was gathered from which source.

SergioFer (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions 11/28/17
This is a well consructed wiki page. The topic is specific enough, it delves into enough detail, its images provide a diverse enough representation of the figures, though I could stand to see just one more, but though there are clearly references, I see no citations anywhere in the work, which as the edit history indicates, could result in omissions by outside observers editing.

Dvchicago Dvchicago (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

suggestions 11/28/17
The references need to be clear where you've used them instead of just listing them at the end without citing them throughout the page. Could have a little more information for the Purpose and Use as well as the Description. Otherwise everything looks nice and the pictures are good. It's formatted and put together very well for starting from scratch. Hawkeye2020 (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment Nov. 29, 2017
Consider adding footnotes using the citation templates provided on the editing page. It is relatively easy to do, and specific page numbers to can be added to the sources so readers can go directly to where the information was referenced.

Like others have mentioned, the "Depiction" and "Purpose and Use" sections seem a little bare at the moment. In terms of length, they just seem to be a bit out of place compared to the introduction and "History" sections, like afterthoughts. The "Depiction" section seems like a good place to add more variety of images as well, especially since it discusses the variety of forms that these foundation pegs can take. Asnders (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Reposting a note
Hi! One of the group members (the now blocked account) asked that I post this here from their talk page: (Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC))


 * Hi! I wanted to step in and give a little guidance as well. I noticed a few things, which I'll go over below:
 * Articles do not have an introduction section per se - that is to mean that the article won't start with a section that is specifically labeled as an introduction or overview. Articles will instead start off the way that the article is currently, where the topic is bolded and the article begins with a lead paragraph without a heading.
 * All claims must be backed up with an independent, reliable source that explicitly states the claim. If the source doesn't state this, the claim will be seen as original research, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia. To put it in a more succinct manner, we can only summarize what authorities have written on the topic in reliable sources - we can't draw our own conclusions or make our own research, even if something seems obvious. You do have some sourcing, but none of it is in-line (more on this next) and some of the content seems like it's your own research as a result of this and of the way it's phrased. (IE, the article says things like "likely" but it's not attributed to anyone or to a source.)
 * On the topic of sourcing, none of the citations are in-line. This means that we can't really tell what the sources are citing and what would be seen as original research. Citations need to be in-line for this reason.
 * Wiki Education has some training that will be helpful, however it would be best if the teacher would reach out to us so that we could help them out more - it's a free program, so they wouldn't have to pay anything. They can reach out to any of us via e-mail at contact@undefinedwikiedu.org or by posting at the Education noticeboard. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It would also be better if they ignored this sandbox version at this point and continued improving the live article at Foundation Figures instead. All of the mentioned problems appear to have been corrected there. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  20:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)