Talk:Tenta, Cyprus

Lead section

Dear Wikipedians, I added a few sentences in the lead section because there was an inadequate amount of information about Tenta.Cstylus (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstylus (talk • contribs) 06:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Evrik (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

View of Tenta

• ... that Tenta (pictured) is an archaeological settlement in Cyprus? Source: Todd, Ian (1978). "Excavations at Kalavasos-Tenta, Cyprus". Archaeology. 31(4): 58–59 – via JSTOR

Created by Cstylus (talk). Self-nominated at 00:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC).

• @Cstylus: The hook isn’t interesting I think. What about...
  • ALT1: ... that Tenta's architectural remains, artefacts, human burials, flora and fauna have been "virtually unchanged for two millennia"?
  • ALT2: ... that Tenta's excavations suggests that there was considerable continuity in social organisation as well as technological and economic practices for two millennia?

Check these two hook and let me know if one of two works. Mehedi Abedin 16:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Mehediabedin:, I really appreciate your suggestions! I prefer ALT1. Cstylus (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• I took a quick look at the article and there are a few issues. Firstly, the article was created way back in 2008, so it is not eligible as a new article. On the other hand, the article did receive a 5x expansion starting on May 9th. The article was nominated on May 17th, which is just a day late; however, as the nominator is a new student editor, that one-day lateness may be forgiven. Finally, the article has a "citation needed" tag that needs fixing. I didn't find any close paraphrasing, and most of the sources (including those for the hooks) are cited to sources I can't access so AGF. I think ALT1 is the best option here. This article is somewhat outside my expertise so I'd like a second opinion from a subject expert as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don't have access to the sources. Can anyone investigate the article for DYK? Mehedi Abedin 08:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

We may need some help from a subject expert. Maybe Buidhe can help? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I would not call myself an expert on Cyprus or archaeology (t · c) buidhe 02:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The nominator hasn't edited in a month and the article hasn't been edited at all since June 15th. If another editor can adopt this nomination that would be great, but as it is the nomination is orphaned. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that would be a shame! I'd like to try to rescue this nom, but no guarantees (I need to check if I can access the sources, I might). @Narutolovehinata5: If I can't get it right, you can still fail it; but give me a week or two :) --LordPeterII (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I have started work on the article (can't access all sources but some), and have already solved the "citation needed" issue by just striking that sentence (was originally sourced to a predatory journal, and not important). --LordPeterII (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking over. Please let me know if you're finished improving the article. I've added you as a co-author. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Alright, I have gone through the article and checked things as best I could. The biggest issue was a complete lack of dating of the site (only the epoch was given); this is now in the lead section and infobox. Some other things were off (e.g. picture that showed Chinese pottery, probably ceramic even), but most info was solid. Btw, I have edited the nom picture, which I cropped in the article to not include an artificial frame. Although much could be done still to improve the article, nothing strikes me as particularly important or problematic for a DYK appearance – it would rather go towards a Good Article improvement maybe, which I don't have time for atm. So, in my opinion, this is ready for a review and should pass, with minor adjustments maybe.

--LordPeterII (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot I meant to offer some alternate hooks for this:

• ALT3: ... that Tenta is protected by a large "tent"?
• ALT4: ... that the Neolithic people at Tenta built houses, but did their cooking mostly outside?
• ALT5: ... that people at Tenta built "first in stone and mudbrick, then entirely in mudbrick and finally entirely in stone"?
• ALT6: ... that the settlement of Tenta likely predates nearby Khirokitia by almost a millennium?
• ALT7: ... that people at Tenta likely imported cats and foxes for pest control?
• ALT8: ... that up to 150 people lived at Tenta, a settlement founded around 8000 BC?

ALT3 is maybe a bit tricky, because the structure is only described as "like a tent", and not actually a tent. It's also the least interesting in regards to actual article content, but an obvious hook idea. --LordPeterII (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Anyone? This still needs a review before it dies of old age :) --LordPeterII (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Assume good faith with the mostly print and paywalled sources cited. Well-cited and -researched, and I can't detect any non-neutrality or uncited paragraphs in this instance. I gave it a light copyedit for syntax and typography. Not quite 5× expanded within seven days of creation, but per the earlier discussion and because the user is a new student editor it's more than okay. I think this should be good for the Main Page (finally). Approve ALT3 as the most witty. DigitalIceAge (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks you, DigitalIceAge :) --LordPeterII (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from A. Parrot

Hello, Cstylus. You asked me for my input on this article, but I don't have that many suggestions. My main one is to make "1947 excavation" and "Vasilikos Valley project" into subsections of a larger section titled "Excavation history" or something similar. The other significant issue is that the anecdote about how the site got its name is the kind of detail that belongs in the body of the article, not the lead section, which, per Wikipedia:Lead section, is supposed to be a summary of the body. A. Parrot (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, A. Parrot. Thank you for your great suggestions, I really appreciate it! I have taken your suggestions on board and have made some edits to reflect them. Also, I was just wondering if you knew anyone that would be able to change my stub article into hopefully a C or even B-class article? I have tried to reach out to fellow Wikipedians on WikiProject Archaeology but have not received any responses as of yet. Cstylus (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

It definitely qualifies for C-class. I'm not part of WikiProject archaeology and don't know if they're strict about enforcing their quality scale, and some might think it doesn't quite meet the B-class criteria. I notice now some jargon-ish words ("transect", "aggradation") that should probably be clarified, and being free of jargon is part of the B-class criteria. In most cases, though, the quality rating doesn't matter that much unless you go through the formal review processes for good article or featured article status. A. Parrot (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

A. Parrot, thank you for letting me know, I appreciate it! Cstylus (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Co-ordinates

The co-ords (34°45'09"N 33°18'11"E) aren't spot on: they point to a location about 20 m away from the centre of the tent, and outside the tent (which, I presume, covers most of the important artefacts); 34°45'08.8"N 33°18'12.3"E are more accurate - but that depends on whether or not decimals are allowed for the seconds. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Photo

Should the photo be replaced by something that shows some of the remains? I was thinking this one from further below. Right now the photo shows some sheep, a few trees and the protective tent. With the article named Tenta, at first I thought the tent was part of the original settlement. Vpab15 (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vpab15: I'd keep the current one, since it's high-quality, and the tent-structure somewhat is part of the archaelogical site today – after all, it's described as a "landmark". But I acknowledge the issue you point to, that it might be confused as some sort of reconstruction (that it's not an original tent should be clear once you read just how old the place is). Regarding the DYK appearance, it might have been less confusing had the other hook been chosen (... that Tenta is protected by a large "tent"?). Anyway, I've changed the picture caption to highlight that this is just the protective shelter. Is that better? --LordPeterII (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the clarification to the caption. I have clarified in the text that the protective roof is modern, since it is wasn't clear before. Vpab15 (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vpab15: Yup that was also a good idea. Thanks! --LordPeterII (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Cyprus - Kalavasos-Neolithic Village - Information.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)