Talk:Endebjerg
Add topic | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Multiple issues
[edit]This is a fantastically detailed article, but in places it ends up reading more like an excavation report than an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia's job is to summarise the information available in published sources and produce a concise article for the general reader. Mentioning individual contexts is almost always going to be too much detail, unless they are particularly special ones. Certainly describing the methods used to excavate particular contexts is over the top.
Additionally, large sections of the article are lacking references. In particular the section on the 2018 excavations (about 50% of the article!) doesn't cite any sources about the site at all. And unless the excavators have been extraordinarily quick to publish their report, I can't imagine that there are any sources to support it, making this original research (not allowed on Wikipedia).
Is the article part of a course assignment, by any chance? – Joe (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Joe, thanks for looking at the page. I'll definitely go back and change some of the prose and information to better summarize the topic for the general reader. In addition, the excavation report for the 2018 excavation should be forthcoming, and will be cited as soon as it is published. This Endebjerg page is in a similar vein as the "Tonnesminde, Samsø" article that was written a few years ago. About the title: Google Maps gives an alternate location for Endebjerg when searched for (we also submitted a new location which was approved); should we keep the ", Samsø" in the title for clarity's sake? Perhaps we should move the article back to draft until the report is published? Thanks, Copbeta (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Copbeta
- We can't include information based on an unpublished report, no. And looking at it again I noticed that the majority of the references in the article don't specifically support the information they're attached to; they're more like "see also" links on related topics. Given that, moving it to draft sounds like a good idea. I'll do that now. Please ensure that everything is supported by a reference to a source—preferably one that actually mentions the site—before moving it back.
- Although the "Placename, Region" format is the norm in the US, we only used it for places in Europe when we need to disambiguate it from another Wikipedia article. That's not the case here, so Endebjerg would be what fits our naming conventions. Tønnesminde, Samsø should probably be moved too. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)