Talk:Arikamedu/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 11:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Bear in mind it's been a while since I've done a GA review (I think we're talking years) so I may well be a little rusty. But I may as well find something interesting to get me back on the horse.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
- The prose does seem like it wants a polish. Everything is well conveyed but some sentences seem like they are missing a word or two--for example, "Most significant finds at Arikamedu are the numerous Indo-Pacific beads, whose origin is traced to this site" is ambiguous here--it seems like "The most significant" makes sense, but as worded it means "the majority of the significant finds".
"for most part of the year it is seen as a lagoon now" -> "for most of the year this is considered a lagoon"
"and is under the control of the Archaeological Survey of India since 1982" -> "and has been under the control ..."
"The first information about Arikamedu was made in 1734" -> this probably wants to be "the first mention of Arikamedu ..."
"He had published a short note about his finds" -> use either "find" or "findings".
"However, his important conclusion was that the site belonged to an early megalithic period" -> "the" early megalithic; also "early megalithic" is a red link; either pipe or redirect it to megalith, the main article.
"Chinese blue-and-white ware were also recovered from the site" -> blue-and-white ware was, or "items of" Chinese blue-and-white ware were.
These are just a few instances, I'd say it would be worth taking a good comb through the article again for prose, and if you need me to take a pass over it as well, let me know.
- The prose does seem like it wants a polish. Everything is well conveyed but some sentences seem like they are missing a word or two--for example, "Most significant finds at Arikamedu are the numerous Indo-Pacific beads, whose origin is traced to this site" is ambiguous here--it seems like "The most significant" makes sense, but as worded it means "the majority of the significant finds".
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- The citations are used well, everything is supported, reliability is no problem. However, a few web sources are used with no access dates, which can cause a problem if they go down in future and archives need to be used; just add this to anything that sites a web page. Ref 8 should also use "pp." and an en dash.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- This is fine, it covers the site and the history both of its use and its rediscovery.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Not really a contentious subject so this is hard to go wrong on anyway, but everything is very matter-of-fact and takes no unscientific license.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Some copyedits here and there, but stable as an article.Nvvchar. 13:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- All images are free, so that's fine, but I worry about how clustered the infoboxes and the image of the pottery engravings make the article feel--in addition, the left-aligned image of the entrance is opposite one of these boxes so it sandwiches the text, which is to be avoided. I'd consider merging the two infoboxes to conserve some space, possible shrinking (or cropping) the statue's image in the first one to shorten it as well, which should go a long way to alleviating this. Also consider adding alt text to the images to help with accessibility for the visually impaired.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Keeping this one on hold for now; the prose is its main concern but there are a few minor pieces of cleanup elsewhere to look at as well. Overall I'm quite happy with it as an article but it is still rough enough around the edges to need a bit of a smoothing over. Let me know if you need any help getting it there, and I'll keep an eye on the article and review for any changes. GRAPPLE X 11:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- @Grapple X: Thank you very much for the review. I hope to comply with all your observations within a day. After that if you still find that it needs further improvement, I will request you to do c/e.--Nvvchar. 10:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Grapple X: I have addressed all the issues mentioned above. I have also done a general c/e. I have removed the second infobox as it is not relevant to the archaeology aspect. I hope I have done the needful. If you still find some oddities, please take a "pass over" of the required changes or let me know so that I can attend to them. Thank you very much for a very thorough and knowledgeable review.Nvvchar. 05:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Nvvchar: That looks a lot better now, thanks. It still could do with access dates for the web sources, used, however—just take a quick check that the content cited is still on the pages, that they're still "live", and note the date you did that in the citation (if you're using {{cite web}} then you can add it with
|accessdate=). GRAPPLE X 10:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Grapple X: Thanks. Can I mention today's date as at the time of writing the article I did not note the access dates on web urls.Nvvchar. 10:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Nvvchar: Oh, yes, today's date is fine--whatever day you most recently check is the day to use, so anyone confirming anything later can see that even if the website goes down or changes its content, it worked for what it was intended to cite on that date. It helps for checking things through internet archives in the future should that be needed. So today's date, or tomorrow if you don't get to it today, or whichever day it happens. GRAPPLE X 11:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Grapple X: As of date all references in the article are live. I have added accessdate to all web references with today's date after due verification. If you are approving the article, then kindly leave a message of approval on my talk page as the bot does not leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again for the fine review.Nvvchar. 12:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- All seems fine to me. Happy to list it at this point. GRAPPLE X 12:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Grapple X:Thanks. Over all pass sign has to be ticked pl. --Nvvchar. 13:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Nvvchar: That looks a lot better now, thanks. It still could do with access dates for the web sources, used, however—just take a quick check that the content cited is still on the pages, that they're still "live", and note the date you did that in the citation (if you're using {{cite web}} then you can add it with
- @Grapple X: Thank you very much for the review. I hope to comply with all your observations within a day. After that if you still find that it needs further improvement, I will request you to do c/e.--Nvvchar. 10:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)