Jump to content

Talk:Chetro Ketl/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 19:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Beginning first read-through. Comments to follow in the next day or so. Tim riley talk 19:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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!
  • Location and position
    • "Chetro Ketl lies .4 miles (0.64 km)" – include the zero in both or neither, I'd say.
      • Done.
  • 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.
  • Disambiguate
    • Arroyo
      • Done.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. 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:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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.
  7. Overall:
    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)[reply]