Talk:Jeita Grotto/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will review this article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   This is an interesting, thorough, and well-referenced article. While the prose meets the GA standard of "reasonably well-written", I think that the article could benefit tremendously from the attention of a skilled copy editor. There are many small instances of awkward sentence structure that could be smoothed out. There are a few quibbles, though:

Lead: It's a bit awkward. Are there 2 caves, and the upper galleries and the lower cave? That's a fair reading of the current sentence. What is an "upper gallery" anyway? Also, perhaps you should wikify "karstic" here instead of later in article so people who are term familar with the term (like me) can quickly click it to see its about.

Also, the statement is given that the cave was "rediscovered" in 1853, begging the question. Who orginally discovered it, and when? If, as I assume, the sentence refers to prehistoric cave dewellers, we should explain that.

Nahr-al-Kalb - only wikify first mention of river.

Very near the end, the sentence "The oarsman shown on the stamp is Mr. Maroun Hajj who still leads boats tours till date" appears. I assume that the intent is to say he still does tours; I think the proper way to phrase that would be to state that "as of (date of source) he still was actively leading tours", or something similar.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Reference 12 gave me a 404 error - you may be able to cite to copy of it at [www.archive.org]

Reference 13 appears to have been taken over by Chivas.com. Even if the page is still there, I don't believe we can use a site that requires age registration.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Excellent level of detail, very appropriate to the subject

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No deviation from NPOV noted.

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Little vandal activity evident in the history of this article.

4. 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):

   2 non-free images, both with FURs, both reasonable assertions of fair use. 1 free image. All of the graphics are stacked on the right side of the page, you may wish to consider moving 1 or 2 to the left side to balance things a bit.

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: On hold to fix the references, and at least smooth out the lead. Once fixed, I don't see anything that would prevent the article's promtion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

   Based on the improvements to the article, I am pleased to list it as a GA. I do hope you or other editors are motivated to continue to work on the article as there is no reason that this couldn't one day be a FA. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)