Talk:Asbestos-ceramic

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.

Finland Low‑importance

	Finland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland 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.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Un-cited, no-context remark about un-dated U. Lund analysis

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The original text of the article had this statement appended at the end of the article:

The analysis made by University of Lund, Department of Quaternary Geology, on asbestos pottery was quite unexpected, since this part of Northern Europe, usually considered to be a step behind the rest of Europe, actually introduced iron production in the pre-Roman Iron Age.

This study, which may possibly be one of the already-cited articles, seems quite relevant. But the study has no citation, and the remark is missing text that would put it in context with the rest of the article. For example: When was the U. Lund analysis found surprising, and who was surprised? What was the surprise?

Right now I've made it a footnote to the description of the unique geology of Lake Samaa, but that's just a guess. The paragraph probably needs to be re-located in a different section of the article, but without the context, or even a reference to look up, I have no idea of where to move it.

If some other editor has a better notion of what to do with this interesting, but incomplete remark, please have at it. 71.94.235.196 (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic