Talk:Schwerdt site

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.

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan 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.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Some notes[edit]

@B1deroo: Thanks for creating. A few notes:

Template:sfn, etc, can (and probably should) be used to reduce duplication in cites-- see WP:IBID)
per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence", which may be an issue for some of the sourcing of this article (?)
Add relevant categories (see Help:Category, plus existing related articles for ideas)
The site articles don't currently link from higher level articles. Would you mind taking a look at Upper Mississippian culture and Oneota and other related articles (Woodland period might be too high level?) and seeing how they can be fleshed out with an overview of archaeology in the region, and so that the relevant notable archaeological sites can be linked from them (whether in text description, structured list or unstructured list)

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am marking as reviewed for WP:NPP purposes but tagged due to the significant uses of the Masters theses ref WP:SCHOLARSHIP and discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard. If the theses can be considered reliable due to their impact, please add justification as a new section on this page and remove the tag (referencing the justification section in your edit summary). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hydronium Hydroxide: Hello Hydronium, thanks for your input! I'm really new to Wikipedia and I thought I might run afoul by using masters theses as the main references. I don't even know if this is the correct way to respond. I have an MA in Archaeology and thought I would put up some pages starting with the local sites in my native Michigan, and some of the surrounding states. I especially want to add late prehistoric and early historic sites because the people who lived at these sites are almost certainly the ancestors of the Native Americans of this area. This is something I'm passionate about and I keep running into roadblocks because a lot of the info IS locked away in masters theses or worse yet, in drawers in university professor's desks, stuck in some State Office of History's file cabinet, or sitting on a shelf in a Cultural Resource Management firm's office. Also when it IS published, it's in arcane language with specialized jargon only university professors understand.

Sorry to be on a soap box; with regards to your criticisms and comments, they are valid and deserve a good response. I believe the Schwerdt site theses are definitely reliable first-hand sources since these students actually participated in the excavations and/or the data analysis. Fortunately Western Michigan University has their masters theses online so they are very accessible. As far as their "impact" or "scholarly influence" it's hard to say because it's definitely not earth-shattering. However I would say on a local level the site has had an impact. It has been cited as an example of late prehistoric settlement patterns. It's only the 2nd site that I'm aware of with a significant Berrien Phase component (i.e. not one or two potsherds here or there). The deep roasting pits with American Lotus roots and sturgeon bone shed some light on the ancient diet and cooking methods. I will go ahead and remove the tag as you stated above; and I'll reference the justification in my edit summary. If you disagree and decide to reinstate it I will respect your decision, and if you want to remove the whole article I would respect that as well. I don't want to be disruptive on Wikipedia! However I will NOT do any more articles based primarily on masters theses. With regards to the citations, I did it that way because I wanted to specify the exact page number I got the info from. I've done it the other way as well, in other articles I've created or contributed to. From now on I'll do it the way you suggested. I will try to link my articles to higher-level pages in the future; thanks for that suggestion! Finally: I'll keep in mind to add Further Reading and Relevant Categories sections for articles I create. I'm getting better at it all the time and appreciate any input! Thanks again!B1deroo (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked other articles to this article, so it's no longer an orphan. I've removed the reference at the top of the page.B1deroo (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@B1deroo: Thanks. One thing to consider with sites that have limited sourcing is that just because they might not have the detailed reliable sourcing to establish them as individually notable for an individual article does not mean that they can't be included with more limited sourcing as a subsection of a broader topic (ref WP:NOTEWORTHY) covering the nature of the site and its inventory without getting into the individual details which are only covered in the masters theses. For instance is there substantial RS material on Berrien Phase? This also gives an escape hatch in the case of deletion (I don't nom articles with at least marginal notability and no promo concerns, but individual editors have individual lines). Good luck! ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 23:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hydronium, yes there are some higher level articles with reliable sources I could link this article into. Woodland Period, Mississippian and Oneota are some possibilities. I plan on doing this shortly! Thank you!B1deroo (talk) 06:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]