Talk:Qʼumarkaj/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks very promising! I will be undertaking the review within the next couple of weeks.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maunus! Simon Burchell (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

I think the readability would be improved by combining some of the small subsections into larger sections of flowing prose. I would especially suggest combining the section about rulers with the history section to get a better flow.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've combined the rulers section - rulership structure etc. is now merged into the "inhabitants" section, while the rulers themselves have been merged into the history section. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This looks much better - I've taken the liberty to move the table of rulers and let the text wrap around it to make for a better layout.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maunus - I'd thought about wrapping the text myself but hadn't got around to finding out how... Simon Burchell (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

I think the lead could do a better job of summarising the entire content of the article. Also I don't like red links in the lead. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new Chitinamit stub and removed the redundant Jakawitz redlink. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good solution.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now expanded the intro somewhat. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that given the amount of the article that goes to describing the site's layout and its buildings - this topic should also figure in the lead.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a summary of main buildings and layout. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisified with the article as a GA now, and am going to pass it.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, much appreciated, Simon Burchell (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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

(c) it contains no original research.

It is very well referenced and uses sources of the highest level of credibility.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

It is sufficiently broad and focused.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

No problems here.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Definitely.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

The images are properly licensed as far as I can tell. They are not of very impressive quality though - and better images should probably be found if ever opting for FA status. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these images I imported from flickr, I also used one of my very old (pre-digital) photos from when I visited the site 10+ years ago (I really must get back some day). There must be better photos around somewhere, but these will have to do for now... Simon Burchell (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]