Talk:Anemospilia

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.

Greece Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek 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.

Anemospilia received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Lack of references[edit]

No references or citation used. extremely unconvincing, i have never heard of the "western chamber" and "conclusion" section before.

museum(s) with artefacts?

Done --5telios 07:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

The debate about whether or not this is evidence for human sacrifice is still very much open - so the conclusion section saying that it most likely is, seems entirely superfluous. Especially as the idea has been aired before in the introduction and further on in the text. The idea that they went up there as a result of the recent earthquakes and that a younger man would be more pleasing - though suggested in some popular history - is complete conjecture. There is no evidence for that at all. I take it upon myself to remove the "conclusion" part - if someone has a problem with that, just restore it and put a note here why you think it should be there. --131.111.233.196 (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Writing[edit]

This article reads very poorly and really needs to be cleaned up. No offense, but it was either written by someone to whom English is a second language or by someone who just doesn't have very good writing skills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.137.173 (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

The Wikipedia coordinates for Anemospilia are wrong. The correct coordinates are: Latitude: 35.255517° Longitude: 25.144569° The temple is clearly visible in Google-Earth!

(RWFG)

—96.251.17.134 (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for pointing out the problem. Deor (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources[edit]

This article is entirely based on a self-published web page (and its author has none of the academic credentials required for this kind of work).--Dipa1965 (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]