Reviewer: ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The article looks very promising! I will be undertaking the review within the next couple of weeks.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
- I think the readability would be improved by combining some of the small subsections into larger sections of flowing prose. I would especially suggest combining the section about rulers with the history section to get a better flow.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've combined the rulers section - rulership structure etc. is now merged into the "inhabitants" section, while the rulers themselves have been merged into the history section. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- This looks much better - I've taken the liberty to move the table of rulers and let the text wrap around it to make for a better layout.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
- I think the lead could do a better job of summarising the entire content of the article. Also I don't like red links in the lead. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've created a new Chitinamit stub and removed the redundant Jakawitz redlink. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Good solution.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think that given the amount of the article that goes to describing the site's layout and its buildings - this topic should also figure in the lead.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've added a summary of main buildings and layout. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
- (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
- (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons
- (c) it contains no original research.
- It is very well referenced and uses sources of the highest level of credibility.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- It is sufficiently broad and focused.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
- No problems here.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Definitely.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
- (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- The images are properly licensed as far as I can tell. They are not of very impressive quality though - and better images should probably be found if ever opting for FA status. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Some of these images I imported from flickr, I also used one of my very old (pre-digital) photos from when I visited the site 10+ years ago (I really must get back some day). There must be better photos around somewhere, but these will have to do for now... Simon Burchell (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)