Talk:Golondrina point/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either spear or dart points. Now added to lead and description. -France3470 (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spent a long while searching but I can't find any sources that explicity state what Golondrina points are made of. I have seen a few flint examples in passing but nothing definitive. I haven't even managed to locate sources which lists the materials used for Paleo-Indian points in general. Perhaps this information is obvious, I am not expert on this subject and could just be clueless in this regard. However I think generally, for whatever reason, this information isn't relevant.-France3470 (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very relevant, and I find it hard to understand why sources wouldn't say what the points were made of. Malleus Fatuorum 04:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. After more searching I can still only find very general information about materials. However I think, [1], might be starting to get there. I'll try to dig up a bit more, tonight.-France3470 (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After extensive searching the best I was able to find was general information about Paleo-Indian point material in the Southern Plains. I added it under 'description', although it might be better in a different location. I have some further information about the locations of these materials but I feel that might be a be tangential as there is no mention in any sources of the Golondrina point specifically.-France3470 (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"... where the point is the most prevalent of Paleo-Indian types and defines a distinguished cultural pattern for the region". In what way "distinguished"? Should this be "distinctive"?

This sentence has proved quite the struggle. I must have rewritten it almost endlessly. I originally had 'distinctive' but changed to to 'distinguished' at DYK over concerns that the wording was too close to the original sentence [2]. However I agree the 'distinctive' is the correct word and I haven't been able to come up with anything that really conveys the same meaning (I would love to be mistaken though). Any suggestions about how to further improve this sentence would be much welcome. -France3470 (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Golondrina point was first named in 1964 by Texas Historical Commission archeologist LeRoy Johnson Jr. for artifacts discovered at the Devil's Mouth site in the Amistad Reservoir, Texas." Doesn't work; how about something like "Golondrina point was the name given by Texas Historical Commission archeologist LeRoy Johnson Jr. in 1964 to artifacts discovered at ..."?

"Several informative sites have also been found Arkansas ...". Informative in what way?

I cannot seem to find any details on these sites. I think perhaps 'informative' might just be a bit of accidental peacocking on my part. I have now removed the offender. If I do find any more information I add it in.-France3470 (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Radiocarbon dates for Golondrina suggest that the Plainview type appears earlier, beginning at around 7000 BC". The article was using BP earlier.

I have decided it is perhaps best to remove this sentence completely. I cannot find any such claim in other sources and I find the wording of the original fact particularly ambiguous about which point it is actually referencing. I could roughly estimate this date to be around 5050 BC (subtracting 1950), although I'm not sure this would be entirely appropriate as projectile point dates and periods (from the little research I have done) seem to vary considerablely from source to source. -France3470 (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"However, one can tell them apart as the Golondrina's blade edges are not serrated". This really ought to be rewritten to avoid the personal pronoun.

Reworded and removed unnecessary bit about serration being a characteristic of Dalton. -France3470 (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have made all the specified corrections, although I plan to give it another read over tommorrow and make a few additional changes before it is ready to be re-evaluated. -France3470 (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]