Talk:Chetro Ketl

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chetro Ketl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

Initial comments

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)

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)

Overall summary

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chetro Ketl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150910091024/http://www.dennisrhollowayarchitect.com/ChetroKetl.html to http://www.dennisrhollowayarchitect.com/ChetroKetl.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)