Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rock carvings at Alta/archive2

Rock carvings at Alta
Self-Nomination, renominated after spending a week on peer review and incorporating suggestions as far as possible (link to first FAC nomination). Complete rewrite after the original article was tagged as a copyvio, comprehensive overview of the archeological site, background history and possible interpretations of the carvings. -- Ferkelparade &pi; 08:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Has the copyvio been removed from the history to avoid legal problems? Are there any English language print sources on the site to add to the reference section? Those points are easy to solve. The rest looks crisp. Support. Mgm|(talk) 08:49, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the copyvio has been deleted, the current article is a rewrite from scratch. There used to be an English translation of Arvid Sveen's book, but I cannot find anything about it at the moment, so I'm not sure about the English title and the ISBN number...there are probably a couple more books in English about the site, but I'm not really a fan of listing stuff as a reference if I haven't had a look at the book myself. Thanks for your support, Ferkelparade &pi; 09:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hmm it looks good, if a little short. But if it covers all the facets of the topic I guess that is fine. The thing stopping me from giving full support is that two references is pretty minimal for a FA. Aren't any of the original or current academic papers on the site available? - Taxman 14:33, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I have the list of references in Arvid Sveen's book, but all of the works he cites are in Norwegian, have (to my knowledge) never been translated and are not really easily accessible. So far, I've had no luck with tracking down something in English (which seems quite odd, given the site's significance), but I'll try to dig up some more references. Would adding the main reference works from Arvid Sveen be helpful? -- Ferkelparade &pi; 18:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, youryour stance before was good. It is dishonest to list a reference you have not properly used to add or fact check material in the article. If there's nothing else in English, I don't have any answers for you, but I can't support something with so few references. We are a reference work after all. - Taxman 21:27, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I see your point about too few references, but I don't want anybody to say I'm not willing to do some homework :) I just spent the evening doing some more extensive research for sources, I was able to track down most of the standard works in the university library...a couple hundred pages to read, and probably some changes to the article coming up. I hope to have a much better references section after the weekend, or in the middle of next week at the latest -- Ferkelparade &pi; 22:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's awesome. If everyone did that, it would be hard to believe the postive impact on Wikipedia. I'm looking forward to seeing the even more well researched article. - Taxman 15:18, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm...it seems it will take a bit longer than expected until I'll get all my reference books and be able to do some reworking of the article (probably about a week). Is it okay to let this nomination sit here for a couple more days, or would it be better to withdraw the nomination for now and renominate in a week or two? -- Ferkelparade &pi; 13:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain. Looks good, but as a person who once studied communication, I definetly can't stand for Petroglyph to be included only as 'see also'. Explanation of petroglyphs and how those carvings relate to them should make at least a paragraph, if not the entire section. Once it exists, I will support. A few more ilinks wouldn't hurt much, the article feels a little 'ilink light' to me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm...of course, a paragraph about petroglyphs could be worked in, but I didn't really think it was necessary - after all, petroglyph and rock carving are basically just two names for the same thing, meaning basically some form of symbol carved into rock, and I thought that much was clear from the context :P About the ilinks: true, the second half of the article is a bit light on links, but that's mainly because pretty much all the terms that could reasonably be linked have already appeared in the beginning of the article and have been linked there. I'm open to suggestions on further links, though -- Ferkelparade &pi; 13:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the entire Wiki section about cave paintings, petroglyph, pictograms, ideograms, writing and basically the history of symblos and communications is in poor shape - something I intend to rectify soon :) I have rewritten petroglyph article now, hope it gives you an idea how to incorporate petroglyph into your article. Note that 'rock carving' is only one meaning of petroglyph: the second is that they are an image depicting an event. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)