Talk:Dolní Věstonice (archaeological site)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dolní Věstonice (archaeological site) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archaeology

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

Czech Republic High‑importance

	Czech Republic portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic 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.Czech RepublicWikipedia:WikiProject Czech RepublicTemplate:WikiProject Czech RepublicCzech Republic articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Confused datings[edit]

It is really a pity to continuously confuse incomparable dates, as BP vs. BC. Moreover, the authors obviously are unaware or even do not know whether the "BP" is calibrated or not. If not, It HAS to be CALIBRATED via CalPal or OxCal! This importance of calibration becomes clear, regarding my calibration by CalPal with a guessed small error of ±400 years, which gives 29003 ± 435 cal. BC, now clearly being OUTSIDE the dates given for the Gravettian in the article. Thank you. HJJHolm (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Textile Section[edit]

I changed one of the citations from a web page that cites back to Wikipedia to the actual journal article that page cited for this specific fact. I also rewrote it so the text makes sense (it used to say an indistinct impression was found followed by a sentence describing the many specific weaving types this provided evidence for) and generalized the second sentence so that it matches what the citation states.

More of a band-aid than a permanent fix. If someone has access to the cited journal, this section can probably be expanded and lose the second generalized source. Bemis Ampleforth (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]