Talk:Chetro Ketl/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 19:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Beginning first read-through. Comments to follow in the next day or so. Tim riley talk 19:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Initial comments
[edit]If the article is taken to PR or FAC I shall have a great many comments about the prose, but to my mind it clearly suffices for GA criterion 1. A few points you may like to consider, but nothing to affect the decision about promotion:
- Etymology
- "In anthropologist Brian Fagan's opinion the meaning of the name is unknown, and archeologist R. Gwinn Vivian states that the origin of the name is unknown" – am I missing a subtle distinction between meaning and origin or is this a long-winded way of telling us that both Fagan and Vivian say that nobody knows the reason for the name?
- Well spotted!
- "In anthropologist Brian Fagan's opinion the meaning of the name is unknown, and archeologist R. Gwinn Vivian states that the origin of the name is unknown" – am I missing a subtle distinction between meaning and origin or is this a long-winded way of telling us that both Fagan and Vivian say that nobody knows the reason for the name?
- Location and position
- "Chetro Ketl lies .4 miles (0.64 km)" – include the zero in both or neither, I'd say.
- Done.
- "Chetro Ketl lies .4 miles (0.64 km)" – include the zero in both or neither, I'd say.
- Excavation
- "that fall" – the MoS bids us avoid dating things by seasons, to avoid confusing readers in the opposite hemisphere; the specific month(s) would be better here.
- Changed.
- "1929 –1933" – spacing looks awry.
- fixed.
- "alters" – is that OK in AmEng? In England we spell the word "altars".
- doesn't seem right so I've changed as suggested!
- "turquois beads" – should this be "turquoise", as in the adjacent caption?
- typo yup.
- "in both great houses" – ambiguous: seems to indicate there were only two, though on re-reading one sees what is meant.
- removed latter part of sentence.
- "that fall" – the MoS bids us avoid dating things by seasons, to avoid confusing readers in the opposite hemisphere; the specific month(s) would be better here.
- Disambiguate
- Arroyo
- Done.
- Arroyo
Nothing there to necessitate putting the review on hold. I'll look in again tomorrow and see how we are getting on. – Tim riley talk 11:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Tim riley, should have got them all now, cheers for the prompt review. No intention of taking to FAC right now! I think you're right, but it's adequate for GA I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Overall summary
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well referenced.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Well illustrated.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Well illustrated.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
If you decide to take this on to PR and FAC, please ping me. Tim riley talk 11:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)