Talk:10th millennium BC/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk · contribs) 09:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 3E1I5S8B9RF7[edit]

Reference No. 9 should have an URL link.
References No. 12, 13, 21, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31 & 33 should be formatted like the others (Edwards, p. 21), with the book title in "Bibliography" section, with the others.
Reference No. 19 lacks an ISBN number.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 3E1I5S8B9RF7. Thank you for these points which I will address. I'll let you know when I've done. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Points addressed[edit]

@3E1I5S8B9RF7: All points have been addressed. Citations have been added over many years and there was inconsistency which is hopefully much improved now. Thanks again. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

I think the article now meets the GA criteria. I'm promoting it, accordingly.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

@3E1I5S8B9RF7: Thank you very much. The review was thorough as it highlighted the inconsistencies in sourcing and I was glad to put that right. Now that we have a standard, as such, for one of these millennia articles, it can be applied to the others. Thanks again and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]