Talk:Megaron

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2021 and 14 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Paul Topazio.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Srhooker.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Consistency

I think this is still a pretty bad article; I suspect that a lot of it has been contributed by a non-native speaker of english, so there are grammar problems. I have made some changes to correct some sudden and jarring switches of tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDemeanour (talk • contribs) 08:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Review

Under the section of structure, the author claims that the Megaron is the earliest architectural act but doesn't provide a citation to a source supporting that claim. Such a large claim should have direct citation from an expert/credible source. In addition, there should be mention of what evidence is available to support this theory and explain why people believe that the megaron is the earliest architectural act. Later in the same section the author makes a similar statement, but does not offer any explanation as to why that is believed.

Similarly, the section regarding the purpose of the megaron is scarce, with no citations. The author should provide a source for where their information is from, and they should provide more information as to how scholars know/what evidence is available that led them to believe the megaron was used for such acts.

In the final section, the author talks about how changes to the megaron made it characteristically Greek. There could be potential bias here, as what one person thinks of as characteristically Greek could be different from how another defines it. Any possible confusion could be eliminated with the inclusion of what specific traits make the megaron Greek.

Mirandabrown (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Miranda Brown

Purpose Section Credibility

The purpose section of this article lacks any citations. Given the uncertainty surrounding the purpose and various uses of the different sections of the megaron, any definitive statements about the purpose of this architectural structure should be accompanied by a citation to a reliable source of information. Samanthaherr (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Structure

The structure section could use more detail/citation. The statement that the Megaron is the first architectural act seems presumptuous considering that there is no elaboration or supporting commentary. We have evidence of civilization before the megaron. The dwellings that Myceneans inhabited were certainly architectural structures. Consider replacing the aforementioned statement. Was it meant that the megaron is the first ceremonial building? If so, that statement would need factual data (dates, numbers, periods, etc) to back it up.

Consider adding detail and links about the civilizations that used the megaron. How do we know that ceremonies occurred? Are there depictions of these ceremonies on surviving artworks (pots? frescos?) If so, a photo of such art would supplement this nicely

Srhooker (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)srhooker

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Megaron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928065329/http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/arts/architec/AncientArchitectural/GreekArchitecture/AGreekArchitecture/AGreekArchitecture.htm to http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/arts/architec/AncientArchitectural/GreekArchitecture/AGreekArchitecture/AGreekArchitecture.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

"well taught"?

Construction techniques, wattle-and-daub section, we find: "The mudbrick surrounding these saplings provided for a dense and well taught structural foundation". What word in proper English was the writer intending to put there, as foundations definitely don't require teaching of any quality. "Well taut" doesn't work either; "well tightened" doesn't really make sense; perhaps just "well fashioned" or "well constituted"; or maybe the intent was more "well conceived", as in "well thought (out)". Definitely needs an edit, though. I defer to anyone with a confident opinion. Please fix. 2001:56A:F0E9:9B00:9414:8EF1:A985:E56F (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)JustSomeWikiReader