Jump to content

Talk:Copán/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: Redtigerxyz Talk 12:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Redtigerxyz Talk 13:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • Ref 150: Schuster 1998. misses page nos.
I've put more info in the ref, no page no. available but I have linked the ref to the url. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1 line Threats needs to expanded or merged with Modern history
Done - merged into Modern history. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1 line group sections can also be merged as Other Groups
Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use {{convert}} in para 2 of Population too for consistency.
I've done the best I can, it's a bit difficult to work the word "structures" into the middle of the conversion when using the template. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two maps of location are not needed. I suggest you remove map 1 as coordinates are given.
I think 2 maps allow the reader to quickly see where in the world the site is, and also its location regionally. My two FAs both had 2 maps (although they were differently scaled regional maps rather than a world map. However, I will remove the world map if you insist. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Central Copán had a density of 1449 structures/km2 (3767 per square mile), in the area of greater Copán as a whole this density fell to 143 structures/km2 (366 per square mile) over a surveyed area of 24.6 square kilometers (9.5 sq mi)" is out of place in Population.
I generally put this kind of info in the "Population" section as structural density gives an indicator of where the population was concentrated and the difference between urban/rural population levels. I can move it to the "Site description" if necessary. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, it will fit there in sites. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've moved it. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • History is very long (not WP:UNDUE), can be separated and summarized for better readability. Maybe not now, but before a FAC.
There are already 11 subsections in the History section. Do you suggest combining some of these? For example, Predynastic History, Early Dynastic History etc. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have merged a section. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merged 1 para sections. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This looks much better - thanks. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Classic Period the statues of Maya deities were often carried into battle on palanquins, facilitating their capture in the event of defeat." What is the connection?
This relates to the beginning of the paragraph, where the burning of two of Copán's patron deities is mentioned. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still the two sentences that bound it have no connection to it. Not so important detail for a non-expert reader. Removing it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removing it may give the impression that Copán was invaded (there is no evidence that Quiriguá attacked Copán directly), it might be better to move the cut sentence rather than remove it completely. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever is most suitable, but the sentence should have context. Also, it is unclear how invasion and the deities have a connection. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the section and added refs. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove WP:PEACOCK terms or cite them with quotes: remarkable, elaborate.
I've removed "remarkable" (along with some unref'd text left over from the old article before I expanded it) but "elaborate" is not a peacock term - it describes the ornate, complex nature of the decoration. The online Oxford dictionary gives, for example, "involving many carefully arranged parts; detailed and complicated.", something that is evident from some of the photos in the article. The term as used is descriptive, not boastful. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Copán river changed course and ... " Did river change course after its rediection? Is the chronology right? The opening para of Site description needs a little work with chronology. Also write a continuous para about the river's effect
After the city was built and abandoned, a meander of the river gradually moved (westwards if I recall correctly), eroding the major architecture of the city centre. This erosion progressively continued until the 20th century, when a new channel was excavated in order to redirect the river away from the principal architecture - so there were 2 movements of the river, its gradual natural change in course and the later redirection to save the site from further destruction. I'll write this up this evening or tomorrow. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded info on the river erosion and summarised in a para in the site description. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see then Structure 10L-4 then Structure 10L-11. What about Structure 10L-5, 6, 7.. ? (It's more about completeness in a FA, not a GA issue)
Hopefully I'll be able to get around to writing up the missing structures, and certainly would before submitting for FA. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a little bit (date of inscription and a bit about funding. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All issues settled. GA PASS. Congrats. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Redtigerxyz Simon Burchell (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Copán/GA1&oldid=1089872989"