Talk:Stone-Age Poland

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stone Age Poland/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be happy to review for GA status. H1nkles (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article. H1nkles (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose is ok but could use some work

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   lead could be longer

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Can't really verify because all the sources are in Polish but considering the topic it would be nearly impossible to find sources in English.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   could use another photo

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Overall the article is good, but will need a lot of work to get to the next level.

Regarding Lead

• Lead is brief but seems to cover the basics. Consider a little more detail, it's only three lines. H1nkles (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Paleolithic

Regarding Homo erectus

• I think microlithic (which is an adjective) should be microlith, but I'm not 100% on that.
• Quote, "This archeologically represents the microlithic complexes of the Lower Paleolithic period." I don't think "archeologicially" is necessary here. Otherwise the section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Consider writing out 500,000 or five–hundred thousand, rather than 500 thousand. The MOS doesn't really address this specific example but I think this suggestion fits with the spirit of the regs in WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words. H1nkles (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Homo neanderthalensis

• Make the number 200,000-180,000 rather than 200-180,000. It is more accurate.
• I'm seeing a lot of wikilinks of words that really have very little connection to the article. Words like mammal, species, flint. I bring this up because I want you to make sure that your wikilinks are to articles that are specifically related to this article. For example, linking to an article about mammals in the Middle Paleolithic period would be much more instructive than just linking to mammals. I really watch for over wikilinking so I'll comment on some of them but you should review the article with a critical eye to make sure the wikilinks you are putting in are topical to the article. H1nkles (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Homo sapiens

• Quote, "During the earlier part the Neanderthal probably still existed and coexisted with the modern man." This statement should be cited or removed as speculation.
• This section needs a thorough prose review. The following sentence is one of several problems, "Upper Paleolithic people were specialized in group big game hunting, sometimes pursuing and driving into traps entire herds." H1nkles (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• A couple of paragraphs in this section have a lot of facts with the in-line citations at the end of the paragraph. Please consider putting the in-line citations after the major facts within the paragraph so that readers can do further research on facts within the article. It also adds credibility to your article. YOu do this in the last paragraph in this section but not the others. H1nkles (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mesolithic

• No need to wikilink dog. It doesn't add to the article.
• You don't need a subheading if there is only one in the section. H1nkles (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Neolithic

Regarding Introduction of agriculture - Danubian cultures of farming communities

• There are some prose and tense issues with this section. I fixed a couple minor tense problems but you should go through and make sure it is all within the past tense voice. An example of a prose problem is in the following sentence, "Their villages consisted of several or more long (even over 30 meters) rectangular homes..." - "several or more" is unnecessarily detailed - how many is more than several? H1nkles (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Quote, "Surprisingly large Danubian complexes were in recent years excavated in the Targowisko and Szarów (Wieliczka County) area of fertile loessial hills." Why is this surprising? As a novice of Polish geography I don't find it surprising. You may want to expand on why this find was unique and unexpected.
• You provide a lot of measurements in the metric system. Per the WP:UNITS you should provide both metric and imperial (feet and inches) measurements. Since this is an article with a European country subject, metric would be first with the imperial conversion in parentheses. If all else is fixed then I won't hold up passing the article if this part isn't fixed but it should be addressed at some point to maintain consistency with the MOS.
• Quote, "The complicated, time and resources consuming defensive structures were being built beginning in mid 5th millennium BC." This sentence is in a passive voice and should be reworded. A suggested rewording would be, "These defensive structures, built in the mid 5th millennium BC, were complicated and consumed both time and resources." H1nkles (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• You have several paragraphs in this section with lots of information and one in-line cite at the end of the paragraph. Per previously-stated recommendations you should try and cite key facts within the paragraph. H1nkles (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Neolithic cultures developed by native populations

• Quote, "...the Funnelbeaker culture people replaced the Danubian cultures in their late phase, and themselves lasted a long time." How long is a long time. Any speculation on how long they lasted? H1nkles (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Overall this is a good section. Again you have citations at the end of long paragraphs with no in-line citations with in the paragraph, this should be changed.
• Taking a critical look at the prose will help iron out a few wrinkles but for the most part this section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Late Neolithic arrivals from eastern and western regions of Europe

This section is ok, wording in the last paragraph is a little awkward but otherwise it's fine. H1nkles (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding References

• You use one citation, U źródeł Polski, 18 times (out of 31 citations), which is a lot for an article of this size. I won't discount the article for it but if you do have aspirations to see the article move to FA status you'll need to diversify your sourcing.
• I believe there was a previous review that had a question about all your sources being Polish. I have reviewed articles that specialize in a very specific time frame in the history of a country and all the sources have been in the language of that country. It is a necessary evil in my opinion. An English-speaking reader cannot do further research, nor can an English-speaking reviewer check to see that the sources you are citing actually say what you claim they say. No offense intended but it is part of the review process to check sources for content. That said I do recognize that there may be little or nothing in English to cite for this article. I do suggest that it would be a worthwhile endeavor to search for some sources in English. I'm sure there are books on Mesolithic and Danubian cultures in Europe that could help augment your sourcing. I probably won't fail the article if you can't find English sources but it would be good to look for some to help your English-only audience.
• Reference formatting is fine. H1nkles (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Overall Review

• See comments above, this section is a summary but address what is written above.
• Some prose work needs to be done.
• In-line citations with in the paragraphs at major facts should be done.
• Your survery of the subject is good, you don't delve into too much detail and keep the technical jargon to a minimum. You explain why cultures were named what they were named, which I like.
• Another image would be good, perhaps another photo of one of the potter pieces you refer to so often in the article, or a photo of one of the sites you refer to.
• Be sure to convert your metric into imperial measurements as well.
• There are a couple of unnecessary wikilinks but for the most part your linking is instructive.
• Overall I think the article is close, a bit more work and I will pass it with confidence. I'll give it a week, if you need a couple more days just let me know. H1nkles (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're done with your editing but I'm going to finish my review, the article is good enough to pass, you should expand the lead and make it into at least two paragraphs, which would be appropriate for an article of this size. H1nkles (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mesolithic coverage

Wow! This is a great article. Pity the Archaeology project hasn't noticed it before. However, the Mesolithic coverage is in need of improvement. That is the only reason I wouldn't immediately recommend it for GA status from Archaeology. That is just my opinion though PatHadley (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)