Talk:Archaeology of Igbo-Ukwu

Agree to separate articles

In response to User_talk:Parkwells#Archaeology_of_Igbo-Ukwu

I agree with you and the other editor on keeping this separate from the article on the town. Have already removed the merger template. You're doing a great job of adding material; it's really clear how significant these sites are. It's a fascinating topic, and the more recent finds confirming Shaw's early theories about trade with Egypt are interesting. In most of the English Wikipedia, academic titles are not generally used, so I've used "Shaw" after the first few references to his first name and dropped "Professor". I've made some minor changes on formatting inline cites, including repetitive cites from the same source, which might be useful as models. I think it's easier to read cites with authors listed first (but of course it is familiar to me.) Will do some research on urls for articles and books - it's useful to give readers a means of reading these. Also JSTOR now has a Beta version that allows independent scholars and others full access to 3 articles each 14 days.Parkwells (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Archaeology of Igbo-Ukwu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 15:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I did a brief copy-edit for some simple errors, this shouldn't bias my review. The prose could be more polished, but is acceptable. No copyvios.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References are formatted properly and consistently. All content is verifiable and adequately cited. Offline sources accepted AGF.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Focused, yet provides key context and information.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The praise directed toward the Igbo-Ukwu culture in the article mirrors that found in the sources cited. It presents alternative views in a fair, unbiased manner.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Very stable.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are public domain in the US, and, as this is an article on the archaeology of a culture, are vital to the topic at hand.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

7. Overall: The prose could use some polishing, but it is acceptable. Overall, a good article. The subject is very important, and I would highly recommend bringing this article up to featured status. It certainly deserves more attention.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

3family6 thank you very much for your review and comments. Thanks to Ukabia and Parkwells for your contributions! Do you think we can get this to FA status with more input as suggested by the reviewer? He has pointed out that the prose needs quite a bit of polishing to achieve that. I share the opinion and recommendation of the reviewer that the subject is very important and deserves more attention. Ochiwar (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'd also recommend expanding the article a bit as well. It's fine for a GA, but it should probably be longer if it's to go for FA status.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

GA removed

I have removed the GA status, as I had to delete the vast majority of the revisions of this article for copyvio reasons. Fram (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

And considering that the older version of the article was a straight copy from the source of this, I have now deleted the page completely. Fram (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Effect on Colonial Era Views

This article states that "The Igbo-Ukwu artifacts did away with the hitherto existing colonial era opinions in archeological circles that such magnificent works of art and technical proficiency could only originate in areas with contact to Europe, or that they could not be crafted in an acephalous or egalitarian society such as that of the Igbo". However, the source does not say that, at least on the page given. It makes no mention of colonial-era opinions and regarding the egalitarian nature of Igbo society, it says almost the opposite: 'The burial at Igbo-Ukwu was of a man with absolute authority over life and death'. I won't remove this bit yet, but it does need a better source if its going to stay in. LastDodo (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Updates to Archaeology of Igbo-Ukwu

Students in my African Archaeology class will be making substantial updates to the page today in response to a series of articles recently published on the 50th anniversary of work at Igbo-Ukwu. I agree with previous editors re: keeping this archaeology of Igbo-Ukwu page separate from the Igbo-Ukwu main page, but I think further edits may be needed to help separate these pages. Usomi (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)