Contents

Talk:List of archaeologically attested women from the ancient Mediterranean region

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Archaeology Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education assignment: Classical Archaeology[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 26 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SaxicolousArtume, 14141424c13131, Swiftmelody27, Brokendiscdrive, Da.Rich.Athenian.Lady, Doglover519, Happyracoon, 12Anonymous!, Birthdaycakepop, K.howard.1879, WofulWarrior131, Ys.uc55, KandiGr4ves (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women with unknown names can be labeled by descriptive titles or customary designations (e.g., Rich Athenian Lady).

This page is beginning life as a WikiEdu project. Student entries will be moved from student sandboxes on April 2, 2024. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EtruscanMayhem (talk • contribs) 18:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sage, We discussed this list during office hours recently and you gave me some suggestions for improving it. Can you take a quick look to provide any other feedback now that I have made those changes? I'll also try to get Brianda and Helaine to check it out. Thanks.

--EtruscanMayhem (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EtruscanMayhem: I think this is going in the right direction! Here's my feedback:

• Title should be lower case except for proper nouns.
• The first paragraph has somewhat of an argumentative/persuasive tone. I recommend either cutting some of the editorializing language that focuses on justifying the topic, or relying on quotations or explicitly attributed views from scholars about the importance of looking at archaeological examples to rectify the focus on elite women in the manuscript tradition. I think based on the sources, you can probably still cover almost all the ground that is in that first paragraph, it just needs to be more explicitly a summary of what others have written so that it won't be confused with being original synthesis.
• Typical Wikipedia style is to more strictly separate citations from editorial footnotes, and to cite each source in a separate footnote. A note like "This is not to say that no writings by women survive." would probably be better as a separate ref, and Blundell and Caldelli should each be cited separately.
• Rather than a complete list of references separately from the footnotes, I would suggest limiting the sources list at the end to the ones that address the scope/concept of this list more generally (ie, the ones that are primarily about the importance of archaeological evidence vs manuscript evidence, or ones that synthesize the literature to provide an archaelogical perspective on women in the ancient Mediterranean), and include the full source details as part of the inline citations for the sources that are not used in the intro but are used for individual entries in the table.

If you can get this to the point where there's at least a sentence and citation for each table entry, I think this will be ready to go live.

--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your suggestions. I followed as much as I could, although I couldn't change the footnote instructions for the students at this late date, as their assignment is due in a few days. For now I have limited the references at the bottom using in-line citations, and will change things up going forward.

Each student entry will be about 250 words, so the intent is to have a pretty robust list by end of week. EtruscanMayhem (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant discussion about this list occurred on the Project: Classical Greece and Rome talk page on April 23-25 2024. [1] ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by EtruscanMayhem (talk • contribs) 20:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't agree with "footnote instructions" at all. It is perfectably ok not to "strictly separate citations from editorial footnotes", and to combine refs. Only putting sources used more than once in a section at the bottom is a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, as a student project, the scope of "archaeologically attested women from the ancient Mediterranean" was chosen so that each student would have at least one figure to work on, but it does leave the article in a rather odd position scope-wise. As far as I can see, there is no source that purports to address the selected scope, which means that there was at least some WP:SYNTH/WP:ORinchoosing the title of the article—it should be the other way around, with the article title chosen because of what the sources address.

As a student project where the editors have presumably gone on to other things, I don't expect these issues to be addressed at all in the near future, but if anyone comes across this post in the years to come and wishes to address it, please ping me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which aspect of the scope your referencing. The regional scope or the archaeology, or both. I can comment if you clarify.

If it hasn't been deleted, more entries will be added to the list this coming fall semester. EtruscanMayhem (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear; I doubt it will be deleted then. I was referring to the regional and temporal scope, which seems somewhat arbitrary. Can you clarify if there was something I missed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]