Talk:11th millennium BC/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 06:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Understandable. I have not worked on this article for a while now and was thinking about removing it from review anyway. Thanks for reviewing it! I will try to find more sources for this type of information soon. Most of the infomation was from Google Scholar which is reliable but that does not mean that all sources are true. I will keep adding sources to these types of articles in the future. FerdinandLovesLegos (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The lead section has no summary of material in later sections (WP:GACR #1b). The "Geography" section is super-local to Europe and the Mediterranean, and would need significant expansion to be in any way representative (WP:GACR #3a and maybe #3b). The second paragraph of the "Humans" section has no citations, and is tagged with two valid citation needed tags (GACR #2c and GAFAIL #3). Some of the material is cited to a self-published and likely-unreliable book by Maddison (the only source used for the "Agriculture and population" section; GACR #2b). Sykley is also very obviously not a reliable source. The only image (a Jomon pot) has a description page that dates it to a 4-millenium range, with this one at one end of the range, making it dubious for inclusion (GACR #6b). The "Other cultural developments" section is a haphazard collection of factoids, jumping back and forth between the Middle East and the New World seemingly at random (with no mention of any other place), and with a lot of detail about one very specific site (GACR #3 again).
Earwig found no significant copyvio, only titles of shared references, but I did not do the more careful check of all sources for whether they really say what they are claimed to say that I would for a more complete review.
I conclude that this is very far from meeting multiple GA criteria, and was not ready for a GA nomination. It is hard to tell whether the sparse set of pieces of information listed in this era are because the information known about this time really is that sparse, or because the article was not thorough in tracking down more complete sourcing. The citation needed tags are not widespread enough across the article to make this a GAFAIL by themselves, but the rest makes this a GAFAIL #1.