Ellerbusch site was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the
good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Ellerbusch Archaeological Site in the U.S. state of Indiana was picked for extensive excavation partly because it was so small?
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S.
historic sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
GA reviewer, please note that the paucity of imagery is unavoidable: the site is on private property far enough from the road that only a distant comprehensive image such as the photo in the infobox is practical, and it's such a basic site that a plan wouldn't be that helpful. As noted in the article, all artifacts found before excavation are owned by the property owners, and if any artifacts found during excavation were removed, they're in storage; Ellerbusch is too obscure of a site to warrant placement of its artifacts in museums or other places where the public can photograph them.
Nyttend (
talk)
17:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Is "Ellerbusch Site" an official name of this site - I can't find anything on google
Lede
"Unlike many sites created by people of the same culture," - why not name the culture?
Angel Site - since "mound" is so much more meaningful, could you change the pipe to Angel Mounds Site?
" it occupies an upland site near a major river floodplain." - why not say the
Ohio River - give more info in lede
"Its existence appears to have been the result of the coincidence of a period of peace and growth in the related Angel Site, which led some townspeople to leave their homes for new villages that were more convenient for resource gathering." see
WP:AVOID - very vague. "townspeople" seems wrong word for people living in villages back then.
"an IU doctoral student began to study the possibility of renewing work" - is this important enough to mention?
The whole second paragraph needs rewriting IMO for conciseness, clarity of prose.
"Thomas J. Green conducted a more intensive investigation of the site: while the Ellerbusches and Martins had excavated a single house in what amounted to a large test excavation, Green conducted careful work on 3,700 square feet (340 m2) of the site." - don't think this the colon works and the sentence is too long.
"His excavation was meant to use Ellerbusch in order to pioneer extensive study at one of southwestern Indiana's smaller
Mississippian sites, which to that point had received very little intensive attention" - why is the
Mississippian culture only mentioned now?
All the reasons for studying a smaller site needs it's own paragraph IMO, to state clearly what is important about this culture and why it should be studied.
(will continue)
Ellerbusch is the official name. It's quite obscure, so you won't find much information on Google (it took me forever to find the citation #5 article), but this is the name used by all sources that don't simply use 12-W-56.
Why do we need to give lots of links in the intro? It's an intro, after all, and the identity of the river isn't relevant to the location of the site.
Giving the culture would force a choice between Mississippian and Angel Phase, which really isn't important
Green and Munson speaks specifically of Angel as a town (see page 310 of citation #5), and residents of a town are townspeople. Moreover, we have to be vague, since the source is vague. Given the complete absence of writing and of oral history, we can't be sure why they settled as they did.
Read the
Seasonal human migration article. Except for a section specifically excluding agriculture, the whole point is agriculture by people who migrate seasonally.
Yes, important to mention because we're giving the history of excavations; it takes a while to make decisions.
Your rewrite introduced grammatical errors and removed crucial information.
The colon is grammatical, and chopping this sentence into pieces would harm the continuity necessary for a single thought.
Because the sources concentrate on this being an Angel phase site, in contrast to
Caborn-Welborn or other Mississippian subgroups. Only here do the sources start to talk about using it as a yardstick for Mississippians in general.
This is not an article about the culture or why it should be studied; it's an article about a single site. We already have
an article on the culture and
another article on the phase of the culture. If we split the reasons for excavating a smaller site away from the rest of the current paragraph, we'd leave the current paragraph with just two sentences, which is way too short.
"Its existence appears to have been the result of the coincidence of a period of peace and growth in the related Angel Site, which led some townspeople to leave their homes for new villages that were more convenient for resource gathering."
" the soil at the site is well suited for seasonal agriculture." - seasonal agriculture is piped to
Seasonal human migration referring to: "Seasonal human migration is very common in agricultural cycles. It includes migrations such as moving sheep or cattle to higher elevations during summer to escape heat and find more forage. Human labor often moves with fruit harvest, or to other crops that require manual picking." - there is nothing in the article to support that this was the case.
As far as the second, anyone can understand what it means, and if you happen to read the entire seasonal migration article and pay attention to its categories, you will observe that it concentrates on the topic for which I'm linking it. Meanwhile, besides the grammatical issue (now changed to "coincidence of periods of peace and growth"), what complaint do you have with the first sentence? All of the sources that touch on the issue suggest this as a strong possibility without proposing other alternatives, but because of the nature of prehistoric archaeology, they cannot say this for sure. The only bit of
WP:VAGUE that appears to touch on this issue is
WP:WEASEL, which says "However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the neutral point of view". Saying anything except mentioning this as a possibility would be analysis and interpretation, and saying nothing at all on this point would be a huge omission.
Nyttend (
talk)
23:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." and "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."
This article fails
lead as the lede is vague e.g. doesn't even mention the "culture" involved.
e.g. The lead says: "Unlike many sites created by people of the same
culture, it occupies an upland site near a major river
floodplain." - it fails to name the culture or the major river.
As I already told you, the culture involved is not particularly relevant to its notability, and nor is the river. I am using
summary style, which provides only the important elements instead of burying the reader with details not necessary to understand the basics.
Nyttend (
talk)
23:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Pipes
Angel Mounds to "Angel Site", not a term used by others on WPl
As an
archaeological site, it is commonly referred to as "Angel Site" in all of the sources that I cited that mention it. Without wasting time on counting the times that they appear, look through ref name=project and see how many times "Angel site" and "Angel Mounds" appear respectively. Meanwhile, ref name=smith uses "Angel Site" except for a single instance of "Angel Mounds State Memorial" (in the passage used as a source for the one time that I used "Angel Mounds State Historic Site"), and ref name=green uses "Angel Site" as well. You'll also encounter the term "Angel site" at
Angel Phase.
Nyttend (
talk)
23:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Sort of. The reader has to read quite far down in the article to try to piece together what the focus is. On the culture? Or what?
None of the sites specify what focus this is (Angel is a small phase, and if any foci have been defined, they're not mentioned in the sources), and the text specifies the culture. What main aspect is missing?
Nyttend (
talk)
23:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see
summary style):
Some unnecessary detail, considering the length of the article"
Example only: "In June 1973, an IU doctoral student began to study the possibility of renewing work at the now-overgrown Ellerbusch Site.
I think that if the article were more concise and to the point (avoiding vague statements) it would be easier to understand.
Yet date not given for the next sentence: "Thomas J. Green conducted a more intensive investigation of the site: while the Ellerbusches and Martins had excavated a single house in what amounted to a large test excavation." (is this
WP:SYNTH?)
Why can't you understand the text? Do you want me to restore your elements such as "
the far southwestern area Warrick County"? Shall I restore little bitty sentences such as "
This initial excavation was published in 1958" instead of making them part of other sentences where they flow properly? Besides violating the basic WP:GAN provision that nominations are reviewed by those who have "not contributed significantly to the article" and not by those who edit them substantially, you're objecting to elements used in the writing of the professionals that I used as sources. Please begin to follow our policies instead of objecting to issues such as the offline state of the citations and the employment of summary style.
Nyttend (
talk)
23:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
reply
I guess that you are unaware that I don't have access to the sources. You don't seem to understand that the reviewing editor can edit the article. The rule is: "you cannot review an article if you are the nominator or have made significant contributions to it prior to the review". Since you are accusing me of "violating the basic WP:GAN provision that nominations are reviewed by those who have "not contributed significantly to the article" while leaving out "prior to the review", I feel that I cannot continue this review. I made four minor edits, for a total of 71 bytes. You're failing to
assume good faith. So I will withdraw from this review and fail the article since it seems we can't work together to improve it.
I have just modified one external link on
Ellerbusch Site. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.