Talk:Necropolis of Amorosi

Autumn 2024 Educational Project Page

This page is part of an Educational Project by students of LIUC, Italy, with a course page at: [1]https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/LIUC_-_Universit%C3%A0_Cattaneo/Digital_Technology_(October_-_December,_2024) . The users of the group are new to the Wikipedia platform, have completed mandatory Training for Students, and are learning to edit following Wikipedia rules. They are open to any advice on improvements of the page in conformity to Wikipedia requirements and guidelines, and any help useful for the enhancement of the page will be gladly accepted. The student Usernames are:

• LIUCAurora
• LIUCFede4
• LiucLeo10
• LiucGio
• LiucGustav07
• LIUCFloor4
• LIUCManuela

Issues or questions can be referred direct to the users or to their tutor @Limelightangel

Limelightangel (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback 6/11/24

@LIUCAurora, LIUCFede4, LiucLeo10, LiucGio, LiucGustav07, LIUCFloor4, and LIUCManuela:

• note and use the guidelines and good practice on lead (or introductory) sections and look at good practice on other pages. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. See also Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Lead_section
• note conventions on dates, and see the section on Era Stles in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
• ref. 1 is incorrectly formatted
• ref.2 is incorrect (it is not a link to a video)
• Needs an Infobox: find a relevant Infobox template from Wikipedia:List of infoboxes and look to see what similar pages have used. Use this templare correctly. Note that these are templates with rules on how they are used and for acceptable field content/format
• needs acceptable, relevant images
• structure/content: look at similar pages e.g. Woodhenge etc.

Limelightangel (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback 12/11/24

@LIUCAurora, LIUCFede4, LiucLeo10, LiucGio, LiucGustav07, LIUCFloor4, and LIUCManuela:

• given the extensive issues listed here, many repeated from earlier feedback, it is advised to discuss & correctly 'check off' issues where they are listed in Talk when completed to manage these tasks. See Help:Talk
• note and use the guidelines and good practice on lead (or introductory) sections and look at good practice on other pages. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. See also Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Lead_section
• factual accuracy: the lead section states it was 'Excavated in the late 20th century'. If this unsourced statement is correct, later content on the discovery is incorrect
• note conventions on dates, and see the section on Era Stles in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
• references. See Help:Referencing for beginners and similar:
  • you do not link out to external websites from the text, as with the reference for the para. on 'Remarkable Discoveries at the Amorosi Excavation'. Use this source as a number reference, not a link out.
  • refs. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are incorrectly formatted. Use the Cite>Website template correctly and provide as much information as possible in the correct template fields. See Wikipedia:Citing sources
  • ref. 1 & 7 are incorrect - the source is not a video
  • ref. 1 & 7 are duplicated. Use the Named Reference tool to use the same source multiple times in the text but create just a single final reference. See Help:References_and_page_numbers#Named_references and look at other pages that do this.
  • ref. 9 is incorrect. The annonymous author has been put where the missing website name should be. The website is Finestre Sull Arte
  • ref. 10 is incorrect. It duplicates ref. 8. Use the Named Reference tool to use the same source multiple times in the text but create just a single final reference. In this case you need to edit the ref. 8 markup to create a refname tage for it, then reuse this refname tag where you reuse it. See Help:References_and_page_numbers#Named_references and look at other pages that do this.
  • ref. 11 is a poor source (annonymous blog). The bloggers name is omitted (Livius)
  • ref. 12 is incorrect. It omits the author, publisher, date accessed and website name
• sources:
  • at least 3 entire paragraphs and several sentences have missing sources
  • some content has imported subjective style and barely changed text from secondary sources, risking plagiarism and copyright violations
• the page is missing the following page elements. Understand the differences between these sections and types of links used. See how it is done on other pages:
  • See Also section: See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#"See_also"_section
  • External links section. See Help:external links and Wikipedia:External links
  • Categories. See Help:Category
• images:
  • the page needs relevant and acceptable images to support the relevant sections
  • the Infobox template allows and needs a relevant image
  • the two existing images are unacceptable and neither located next to relevant sections:
    • the first has no caption or clear relevance to the topic
    • the second is irrelevant to the page topic
• structure:
  • Discovery and Excavation sections need to come before the actual features
  • poor section and sub-section headings e.g. Key Features, Geography (better as Location), Gender Roles Reflected in Grave Goods, 'Remarkable Discoveries at the Amorosi Excavation'; etc.
  • Excavation should provide information on the archaeological dig (who excavated it, who funded it, etc.) and be different from content on what was found (seperate section)
• use of bold. Use the guidelines available for this and for all other text formats at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting
• poor grammar e.g. 'A preliminary verification of archeological interests brought to light a large area that is located near the Volturno river[4], one of the largest rivers in southern Italy'
• content:
  • extensive duplicate content e.g. in Geography and Discovery; in lead sectionin Discovery and Excavation (uncovered during excavations for a power station in spring 2024); 88 pit tombs; 13,000 square meters; Iron Age; pre-Samnite; 2 large mounds; etc.
  • irrelevant content for page topic e.g. 'The territory of the Telesina Valley includes 20 municipalities'
  • some of the section on History is generic, irrelevant to the page topic and belongs on another page, or needs better page topic relevance.
• linking: See help:linking
  • you link out once, the first time the linked term is used
  • you do not duplicate links out (several occurences)
  • many sections are missing obvious links out
  • avoid ovelinking i.e. unnecessary links out
• style: there are extensive issues with style and vocabulary. See Manual_of_Style#Vocabulary
  • avoid the use of subjective and biased vocabulary e.g. 'this exceptional discovery'; 'a vital tool'; 'Remarkable Discoveries'; 'This significant find'; 'Reminiscent of the princely tombs discovered in Campania'; 'provide essential clues '; 'valuable insights'; 'underscores the site’s '; etc.
  • avoid the use of unnecessary/redundant vocabulary e.g. 'more precisely'; 'The recent excavation'; 'Additionally'; 'in contrast'; ' ' etc.
  • the style for the History and Remarkable discoveries sections is inappropriate

Limelightangel (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Good evening professor,

I personally changed the lead section but I still can't find out which could be the best version, and I've also followed the link given. can this example be more accurate?

"The Necropolis of Amorosi is an Iron Age burial site located in Amorosi, a town in the Campania region of Italy. Dating from the 9th to the 6th century BCE, the site contains tombs, including in-ground and chambered pits, with grave good such as pottery, jewellery and weapons. These findings provide insight the burial practices, social structure and daily life of pre-Roman Italic cultures." LIUCAurora (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

--LIUCAurora (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC) PERSONAL SUGGESTIONS:

• Discovery before history
• No copy and paste-review your parts, even though you didn't, we totally need to change style and search for a more formal language
• On excavation, pre-samite reference is not well formatted, as the others mentioned before. Ref 2 and 7 have been already been fixed by me
• More sources if possible, we have two review their formetting
• Structure section (see woodhenge)
• Sections are not well subdivided
• No informal language

• http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/70135 add the archeological section that has to be added to “key features of the necropolis” which, btw, can be replaced with “ARCHITECTURE”: further details will be given in tomorrow meeting