Wikipedia:Peer review/Hypogeum of Ħal-Saflieni/archive1

Hypogeum of Hal-Saflieni
Please help me modify this article in the best way possible, following research I have done I want this aticle to eventually become a feautured article and I would be grateful if I can have your views on it, and on how it can be improved. Extensive research was done, the photo is taken from a government tourist pamphlet (1960?), and in my opinion it is uncopyrighted. The Hypogeum as one will not, is a unique worldwide site. There is NO similar prehistoric site in the world, therefore its importance is clearly significant.

I look forward to your views Maltesedog 15:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all the Peer Review template should go on the article's talk page. Then the article is missing references, and definitely more descriptive text for each level. More pictures wouldn't hurt either, specially because the copyright status of the picture you provide is unclear. You could get rid of the "introduction" header since the lead is supposed to serve that function. You also need to clarify the meaning of the abbreviations in "Fr. Manuel Magri sj." and generally copyedit the text you already have. As it stands this article needs a lot of work. -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; | Esperanza  18:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)



- Fr. Manuel Magri refers to Father (Priest) and sj (Society of Jesus) - as he was a jesuit. I believe the abbreviations are correct.

- With regards to references most of the info provided is following personal notes carried out after a visit to the location.

- With regards to the picture that government pictures are uncopyrighted.

- I am looking to increase the number of photos

Look forward to hearing from you further advise on the matter Maltesedog 14:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I added a list of references, related articles, categorised the article and included external links. What do you think now? Maltesedog 15:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, the article is looking much better now. Do you have any source for your claim that Maltese government pictures are uncopyrighted (e.g. a website)? You say you took the picture from a pamphlet, so it may be that the government licensed the picture from some private photographer and therefore only the Tourism Ministry would have had the permission to use it. Do you know if any books or magazine articles have been written about it? You could include references from those even if in Maltese.


 * I still think you can considerably expand the description of the site, maybe including the reason behind better explanation of the names of the features in the second level.


 * I copyedited the text a bit of the lead text. And also expanded the abbreviation since you can't assume every reader to be familiar with them. Keep up the good work. -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; | Esperanza  15:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Copyright legislation is quite recent in Malta. I have traced the following website regarding crown copyright, I do not know if its useful to detect whether there are copyright implications with the picture provided.  Actually the picture came to me as a cutting on itself, yet I quite sure it was taken from a 1960's tourist pamphlit. What I found is http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/conf/dac/en/sterling/sterling.html


 * I do not have knowledge of a book written directly on the Hypogeum. Actually much of its history is a mystery.  There is not much detail which can be added.


 * The stamp actually is a 2c5 stamp (2 cents 5 mils), I arranged this in a way which will clarify the meaning of "2c5" which is not the same as 25c. Mils were removed from the local currency system, even though certain prices of products do include mils which are than rounded. In this case, the stamp is an old stamp and no longer in use Maltesedog 17:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My initial impression is that it's pretty sketchy. Of course, it could be that there really is no more worth saying about some of the rooms/chambers than one line... but then that may alsoimply that the subject isn't sufficiently engaging for a featured article.


 * I will do my best to try and seek further information on the rooms even though its a mystery. I can't understand your phrase "pretty sketchy" in the sense you mean it. It took me personal time and research to have such article complete. Maltesedog 17:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello, the above comment was by yours truly. Sorry I forgot to sign. I've been told on my talk page that Maltesedog is upset by my comments. Obviously that wasn't the intention. However, I'm afraid I can't really find fault with anything I've said. By "pretty sketchy" I merely meant that you have 7 sections, each having less than 4 lines, this suggests that either there is more detail that could be added or, possibly, that each room does not warrnat a section of its own and the whole temple could be described in one or two paragraphs that flow together.


 * I'm further informed that Maltesedog is a new user. It's brilliant to have you aboard and very gratifying that you've discovered peer review so quickly. I've been here for 18 months and was only dimly aware of this page and haven't contributed before. It's fantastic that you want your articles to be among the best on Wikipedia and I hope you'll stay on the project. However, criticism is a necessary part of peer review, so I'm afraid you will have to accept that as part of the process and try not to take any comments personally.


 * A featured article nomination cannot claim special favours by virtue of being nominated by a new arrival. It has to slug it out with the old hands on a level playing field. But don't be discouraged. Wanting a featured article is probably 90% of the battle and I'm sure you'll get there before long. Good luck. --bodnotbod 09:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * PS, I haven't time to check these myself, but you may find some more info at this search or this page in particular. --bodnotbod 12:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)