Wikipedia:Peer review/Pompey stone/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
Looking for thoughts on where to take the article from here. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Usernameunique
[edit]Design
the New York state archaeologist
— Was this an official title, i.e., he was the official archaeologist for the state of New York?
had been changed
— Any more details on how this happened? Someone with a chisel? Weathering?
- They honestly aren't sure. Case's article suggests that the state archaeologist basically didn't notice the alteration until 1937 and the mentioned fire would likely have wiped out virtually all earlier records, unfortunately. I've emailed the New York State museum but heard nothing back, not that it would be permissible either way. Since it was on display in the museum, it was probably someone who actually altered it. Clarke wrote the Onondaga Historical Association, a letter I've actually seen, which Case quotes him as saying "I am at a loss to give a reason for this unless in the years since its discovery someone has made an attempt to restore the faint lines by scratching them deeper and in doing so lost a part or erred in the date." I could quote that or add a sentence along those lines if it would help?
History
It was moved to the nearby village of Manlius
— When/by whom?
- Honestly not sure by whom, but after about six months
The State Museum of the Albany Institute next put the stone on display.
— When?
- essentially directly after a year in Manlius. I perhaps have clarified?
"better facilities for the inspection"
— Whose words?
- Attributed
- What happened after 1880?
- The structure I'm envisioning is the description section first, followed by the 'creation, discovery and early display', then 'analysis and discovery as hoax' and ending with later display. I've re-titled the sections does that make it clearer?
Analysis
an article republished
— Where was it initially published?
- Sadly all the paper describes is "An United States' Paper" and I've been able to find nothing else. I kept this in because it's the earliest analysis that I've been able to track down.
- The first sentence is confusing and a bit of a run-on.
- Attempted to clarify, now two joined by a semicolon.
Barber and Howe theorized
— In a journal?
- Book, clarified.
1847 work
— Book?
- book
- Lots of names in the second paragraph without descriptions of who they were.
- added
- The publications mentioned in the second paragraph should all be long in the public domain. I'd cite each of them as well, along with links to them (e.g., on Hathitrust or the Internet Archive).
- I think I've cited virtually all of them to their gbooks now
submitted a paper to
— Was it published?
- Corrected error
- The sentences in the second paragraph feel fairly unconnected. Are there any ways to tie them together more?
- I'll come back to this one, shortly
More later. Generally speaking, the article seems to follow the chronology of the scholarship on the stone, rather than the chronology of the stone itself. For instance, the part about Sweet letting on that the stone was a hoax is buried deep within the article, when arguably this information should be the very first part of "History". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Good point, I've moved some of it but left mention of Sweet's letter later for clarity. How does that flow? Eddie891 Talk Work 17:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your comments to date! Eddie891 Talk Work 20:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Usernameunique to date! I've responded to all your comments above. I'm not sure on the best way to tie the second paragraph together. I added an intro sentence which might help the flow? Eddie891 Talk Work 02:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)