User talk:Z. PUPU/sandbox

Great start, good outlining!. I'm not sure if a 'results' section is necessary. Look at other archaeological site entries to get a good sense of what kinds of sections you shoudl have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Archaeological_sites

- Your article is taking shape nicely, well done! A lot of work to do on citations, make sure you give plenty of time to do that well. Do go back to our class seminar reading list to find relevant articles to cite. Comtebenoit (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

- Looking very good! You should combine 'archaeological significance' and 'connections' and just have 'archaeological significance'. Also it is bad style to begin a sentence with digits, change that. Comtebenoit (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

-
 * still many tags highlighting areas to fix
 * formatting of reference list needs fixing so each item only appears once, see this for an example of how to do it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arctickinkajou/sandbox#References
 * items in 'further reading' are missing bibliographic details (page numbers, place of publication, etc.). And the two URLs dumped there need to be expanded into proper references.
 * many of your inline wikilinks are do not help the reader understand technical details but seem to be random choices just to inflate your number of wikilinks. This is poor style and careless. See here for how to use wikilinks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Linking#General_points_on_linking_style