Talk:Lawrence H. Keeley/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 21:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Picking this one up. Review to follow... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Do we know what the H stood for in his name?

• Consider uploading a Fair Use image of him.
• Add full name to the first paragraph. I know it is repetitive, but otherwise it is unsourced.
• the infobox says he got his MA from Oregon, but this is not in the article.
• Add alumni of University of Oregon to the categories
• And University of Chicago faculty
• His thesis is in the infobox but not the article. Add it to the article.
• Do we know who his PhD supervisor was?
• Link microwear analysis, lithics on first use in the body
• Link hominid, stone tool
• Decapitalise the "P" in "Paleolithic archaeology", A in "Microwear Analysis"
• "Lawrence Keeley" -> "Keeley" after first mention
• "Toth later ... but later" Can we avoid one use of "later", perhaps with a different word, to avoid this awkward repetition, where the same word has two contexts in the one sentence?
• "saw other ways to challenge Keeley's "peculiar view" of anthropology" Like, for example?
• fn 14: Do we have a doi or ISSN?

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A solid article. Meets GA standard although I have some issues minor listed above.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No images

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: