Talk:Heraion of Perachora

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece Mid‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rated edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I don't normally do wikiproject quality ratings, but I was quite appalled at seeing this article rated as "start". Seriously, what are people thinking? This article is absolute top quality. Calling this "start class" is an insult to its creator.

I've assessed it for the B class requirements and given it a pass on all. I'm aware that the lack of inline citations may seem like a problem to some, but if you look at the kind of statements (very simple factual descriptions, almost throughout), and the titles of the references listed (very specific excavation reports), it becomes immediately clear what corresponds to what.

Obviously, it meets all other criteria with flying colors. In fact I've gone straight beyond "B" and called it "A", because I really don't see much that could be improved. A criteria:

well-written, reasonably clear and complete: yes, with evident expert competence;
length and structure: obviously;
references: top quality (with the only drawback the lack of inline citations);
illustrations: marvellous.

Disclosure: I made one minor contribution to this article myself, by providing the map for it, which was really the only thing I found missing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

More often than not the WikiProject ratings aren't updated after the tag is first put on the page, unless someone specifically asks them to be, or the article goes through peer review. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 08:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Or at least that's how it is for archaeology. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 08:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Add topic