Talk:Pike-Pawnee Village Site/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) 22:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. My strategy is to give overall comments about the article, then go through it section by section, check all the references, and finally to check it against the Good Article criteria. I'll let the nominator know when I'm ready for their response. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 22:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Overall comments

This looks like quite a strong article. It only receives around 13 views per day but is perfectly notable. The nominator has performed many significant expansions and the edit history reveals not one revertion, so it's very stable. There are many references and quite a lot of detail, illustrated with images.

Section analysis

Description

• There are some measurements which should be abbreviated: foot, meter, mile and kilometer (ft, m, mi, km).

Why abbreviated? I used the default form of the "Convert" template, which produces full names for the primary units and abbreviations for the converted form. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Unit_names_and_symbols, "In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times..."

The one exception I can see is in the "Description" section, where I did a manual conversion from a very approximate "about one-fourth mile" to a similarly approximate "about one-half kilometer". Per MOS:CONVERSIONS, "Converted quantity values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source quantity value". I thought that "0.4 km" would appear too precise, since the original quarter-mile measure was fairly imprecise. In this case, I followed the usage indicated by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Unit_symbols: "Units symbols are preceded by figures, not by spelled-out numbers: for example, 5 km, not five km." Ammodramus (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No other issues

References

What is with the listing of references down at the bottom and then named above, rather than having the references inline and simply having {{reflist}} at the bottom? This can be left but I was wondering why the unusual way of doing it, and also that they would be better in two columns, because the list is quite long.

—I've restored the separate "Notes" and "References" section, which you combined in a single "References" section. The original sectioning was consistent with the usage at WP:CITESHORT and Help:Shortened footnotes, among other places.

—I like to use list-defined references, described at WP:LDR and in more detail at Help:List-defined references. I find that they make it easier to read the text in the edit window, which reduces the incidence of embarrassing grammatical errors. They also allow me to delete or move a passage without having to copy citation material to another place in the article.

—Per your suggestion, I've converted the list of notes to two columns. Ammodramus (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ref 73 appears to be dead

Ref 73 removed. Ref 74 appears to cover most of the points that it was intended to support; I'm looking for a new citation to support the statement that the Republic County site was better preserved than the Pike site. Ammodramus (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Found and inserted a citation for this statement (Platoff). Ammodramus (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Just need to fix my above suggestions then the article can be promoted. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 22:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this! I appreciate your taking the time to read carefully through a long article on an obscure subject. I've responded to your suggestions above; although I haven't implemented all of them, I hope that I've given good reasons for my not doing so. If you believe otherwise, please let me know. Ammodramus (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

All the new changes are OK and there's nothing else I can see to be done, so I'll promote the article now. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 15:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)