Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Pyramid Mound"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Groupuscule (review) |
imported>Nyttend (You overlooked the statement) |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
::<blockquote>Information about Pyramid Mound is more anecdotal, though it is reported to have a sand core (Smith, 1921), and is located in the same landscape position as Sugar Loaf. Again the size of the loess cone is strikingly similar to Sugar Loaf at some 9 m high (determined from USGS quadrangle) and 91.5 m east - west and 45.7 m north - south (Lilly 1937:76). As with other features, the long axis is oriented with the prevailing winds from the west.</blockquote> | ::<blockquote>Information about Pyramid Mound is more anecdotal, though it is reported to have a sand core (Smith, 1921), and is located in the same landscape position as Sugar Loaf. Again the size of the loess cone is strikingly similar to Sugar Loaf at some 9 m high (determined from USGS quadrangle) and 91.5 m east - west and 45.7 m north - south (Lilly 1937:76). As with other features, the long axis is oriented with the prevailing winds from the west.</blockquote> | ||
::Doesn't seem definitive. But then the article concludes: "Three other loess cones described here exhibit a similar size, form, structure, and landscape position which suggests similar eolian formation processes were involved. This might be good enough but it would be a lot better to find another source or two that confirms the ''shocking truth'' that the Pyramid Mound is not a mound! Also I think parts of the above could be quoted in footnotes for the curious reader who can't get behind the paywall. <3 , [[User:Groupuscule|groupuscule]] ([[User talk:Groupuscule|talk]]) 04:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC) | ::Doesn't seem definitive. But then the article concludes: "Three other loess cones described here exhibit a similar size, form, structure, and landscape position which suggests similar eolian formation processes were involved. This might be good enough but it would be a lot better to find another source or two that confirms the ''shocking truth'' that the Pyramid Mound is not a mound! Also I think parts of the above could be quoted in footnotes for the curious reader who can't get behind the paywall. <3 , [[User:Groupuscule|groupuscule]] ([[User talk:Groupuscule|talk]]) 04:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
| − | + | :::Actually, you overlooked the definitive statement: please read between the lines that you quoted. You'll see "Geomorphological analysis of Sugar Loaf Mound indicates...that the mounds are not cultural in origin". In other words, they weren't produced by any [[archaeological culture]] at all, and this is reinforced by its placement just one sentence after a comment about people originally thinking that the hills "were artificial mounds". [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 07:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC) | |
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | {{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | ||
Revision as of 07:04, 3 November 2012
Pyramid Mound
- ... that Pyramid Mound (pictured) in the U.S. state of Indiana really isn't a mound?
- Reviewed: Paola Barrientos
- Comment: ALT1 "... that Pyramid Mound (pictured) in the U.S. state of Indiana is actually a natural hill, not a mound?"
- Comment: If you have access to the journal Geoarchaeology, you can find the article by going to its DOI, 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6548(199810)13:7<649::AID-GEA1>3.0.CO;2-6.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to link the article directly (some of the characters in the DOI cause coding problems with linking), so we'll have to settle for an unlinked citation unless you can figure it out.Never mind; the helpful people at WP:HD showed me how to link it. Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Created/expanded by Nyttend (talk). Self nom at 01:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Love the hook! Article is new on 2 November, well-formatted, and auto-notable because it describes a nationally registered historic place. I was a little hesitant to proceed with the hook fact as is, due to the key article's treatment of the Pyramid Mound specifically:
Information about Pyramid Mound is more anecdotal, though it is reported to have a sand core (Smith, 1921), and is located in the same landscape position as Sugar Loaf. Again the size of the loess cone is strikingly similar to Sugar Loaf at some 9 m high (determined from USGS quadrangle) and 91.5 m east - west and 45.7 m north - south (Lilly 1937:76). As with other features, the long axis is oriented with the prevailing winds from the west.
- Doesn't seem definitive. But then the article concludes: "Three other loess cones described here exhibit a similar size, form, structure, and landscape position which suggests similar eolian formation processes were involved. This might be good enough but it would be a lot better to find another source or two that confirms the shocking truth that the Pyramid Mound is not a mound! Also I think parts of the above could be quoted in footnotes for the curious reader who can't get behind the paywall. <3 , groupuscule (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, you overlooked the definitive statement: please read between the lines that you quoted. You'll see "Geomorphological analysis of Sugar Loaf Mound indicates...that the mounds are not cultural in origin". In other words, they weren't produced by any archaeological culture at all, and this is reinforced by its placement just one sentence after a comment about people originally thinking that the hills "were artificial mounds". Nyttend (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
