Talk:Archaeological interest of Pedra da Gávea

Archaeological interest of Pedra da Gávea has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 23, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Pedra da Gávea was copied or moved into Archaeological interest of Pedra da Gávea. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Brazil Low‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics 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.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism 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.

Mountains Low‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Archaeological interest of Pedra da Gávea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 18:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Copyvio check found some content duplicated from Wikipedia, but that is all.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What was copied?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main culprit was Who Talking, which brought up a 92% similarity, but a flickr photo had some similarities as well.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In August 2000, a group of geologists travelled to the summit of Pedra da Gávea with equipment to determine whether the mountain possessed any hollow spaces; their results showed that the structure was solid and that there were not internal tunnels or burial tombs." - Try "not any" or "no."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--23:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Follows proper layout.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
Reference sections follow consistent pattern, references easily identifiable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
All content cited, I am accepting the offline, subscription only, and Portuguese language sources all AGF.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
All content is verifiable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Major aspects covered.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Focused on the subject.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Neutral, does not give undue wait to fringe theories.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Stable, single author article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Either public domain or fair use.Italic text

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Useful and relevant, with relevant captions.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: Just one small prose issue.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pass or Fail:

Comments

I am currently in the midst of an intensive review of the Nepal article. I plan to have reviewed this before the 23rd, but I just want to inform the nominator on the delay.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Fanthorpe and his wife are not reliable sources by our criteria. He and his wife are fringe authors. See his article. He was President of the British UFO Research Association and their books include "Rennes-le-Chateau: Its Mysteries and Secrets (1991), The Oak Island Mystery: The Secret of the World's Greatest Treasure Hunt (1995), The World's Most Mysterious People (Mysteries and Secrets) (1998), Mysteries of Templar Treasure and the Holy Grail: The Secrets of Rennes Le Chateau (2004), Mysteries and Secrets of the Templars: The Story Behind the Da Vinci Code (2005), Mysteries and Secrets of the Masons: The Story Behind the Masonic Order (2006), and Satanism & Demonology: Mysteries and Secrets (2011)." Marx isn't any better either. I'm also wondering if the sources used for "Phoenician amphorae in Guanabara Bay by Robert F. Marx was used as evidence by supports that the Phoenicians were at least in the area" (I presume 'supports' is meant to be 'supporters') actually discuss Pedra da Gavea. Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that Fanthorpe is a fringe-theorist, but the work cited in this article was published by a legitimate publisher and is confined to a single book (I also can't find any consensus on this site that he and his wife are "reliable sources by our criteria"). In addition, except for the mention of the sphinx, all the footnotes citing Fanthorpe are backed up by other citations. However, I did remove the source about Marx, since it was tangential (I was merely providing what Marx actually claimed it was, lest people think Marx himself was claiming that the artifacts were Phoenicians).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I just removed it. Better safe than unreliable!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the Marx bit, but this time, it is merely a footnote to clarify what he claimed, in comparison to the theories that some fringe theorists were using his info to promote.--Gen. Quon (Talk)

The authors might be fringe, but most of the speculation on Pedra da Gavea is apparently fringe, and even fringe authors are reliable for statements about their own opinions. However, the article is fine without that source specifically.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]