Wikipedia:Peer review/Miami Circle/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Miami Circle[edit]

After re-reading what I wrote, I have changed this summary. I am new to Wikipedia, and this is the first article that I have written that I consider close to 'complete'. I am pleased with the content, but I would appreciate feedback on all levels, from style and POV to content. I know that it needs wikification and no doubt some grammatical cleanup, which I will carry out myself following a sufficient break from the text. I know that the "Sceptic cranks and septic tanks" title is inappropriate, but it amused me to write though it's a bit POV ;-) I wrote this as I was rather surprised to find it wasn't mentioned at all in the Wikipedia, it is certainly a candidate for the most significant US archaeological find in recent times, though seems overlooked. Particular aspects I would like reviewed are content (anyone who is more familiar with archaeology would certainly be able to help with some of the technical aspects), and I have also had problems finding public domain images (I will be approaching the Miami Historic Preservation council if none can be found). The final comments I would appreciate are anything pertaining to a better approach I could have made to this article as a new Wikipedian. Thanks for any help, in any capacity. Pseudosocrates 19:23, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • The section title was amusing, but yes, does need to be changed for NPOV. 1) I would certainly contact that association anyway and see if you can't get some GFDL or acceptable Creative Commons licensed pictures from them. They may have other material you can add. 2) The lead section contains a sentence that I don't think it means what you think it means: "It is the only known evidence of a permanent structure cut into the bedrock in the United States..". You must mean before European settlement right? I'm sure there are lots of things permanently cut into the bedrock now. 3) As to general approach, you've done a great job, there are only two things I would suggest: one is a greater reliance on primary sources, and citing them. Did you really get all of that info from 2 online resources? Try to get a hold of primary sources and properly format the ones you do use in a references section. The BBC documentary seems like a good start. Second would be to be careful for the structural POV. Your statements are generally all pretty good, but the article seems to offer criticisms and other viewpoints, only to refute every one of them. If they are really minority viewpoints, simply state that and find a good source and cite it. So basically, great work. Just do more of what you've done and Wikipedia will be a better place. - Taxman 13:31, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)