Talk:Ruins of Gedi/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Joe Roe (talk · contribs) 10:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First reading[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An exceptionally comprehensive, detailed and well researched article. Just needs a few improvements to the layout and formatting (1b & 2a), and expansion of the lead, to meet GA standards. – Joe (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The prose is reasonably clear, if a little overburdened with detail. I spotted a few grammatical mistakes which I fixed, but I'm not the most eagle-eyed so the article would probably benefit from further copyediting. Nothing fatal though.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The lead should be significantly expanded to summarise the major points in the article body (but drop details like the precise distance from multiple nearby locations!). Similarly, the infobox could be significantly expanded and it would be nice to see that lovely photo of the Great Mosque at the top of the article. Layout is also a major weakness. There are sections which significantly overlap (site description vs. architecture, site history vs. archaeology, local economy vs. maritime trade), ambiguously titled sections (isn't the whole article a "site description"? Can we expect the reader to infer the difference between "site history" and "history of occupation" from just the TOC?), and the order isn't logical to me. On the basis of other articles on archaeological sites I'd suggest something along the lines of: history of discovery and investigation -> history of the site -> description of the site -> interpretation of the site. But whatever you go with, you should definitely avoid splicing sections, e.g. having two sections on the history of investigation between descriptions of the architecture and finds. The standard "See also" and "External links" sections would also be a nice addition. Finally, while MOS:UNITS is not part of the GA standard, the inconsistent use of units is jarring. As this article doesn't not have strong ties to the US, ideally all the units should be given in SI, with an optional conversion. Either way it should be consistently SI-first or Imperial-first, and consistently converted or not converted.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Generally consistent, but a few references are not formatted using a template. None of the references are accompanied by URLs or DOIs even though many have online versions available. These should be added. Since lots of references are repeated, perhaps consider switching to shortened footnote style.

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Exemplary. Every single statement is directly cited to a high quality scholarly source.

C. It contains no original research:
The article relies quite heavily on primary sources, but I believe this is appropriate for an article about a single site.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
No significant matches found by Earwig's copyvio detector.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Very comprehensive. My only suggestion would to be expand the section on this history of the site with more regional background, if sources are available.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
As mentioned above I found the prose got a bit bogged down in the details, particularly in the description sections (e.g. listing every major structure, giving precise measurements) – and I'm used to reading site reports! I'll leave this to your discretion, though.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Very nice images. Are no photos of the finds available, though?
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold pending improvements to layout and formatting. and expansion of the lead (1b & 2a).

@Joe Roe: Thanks so much for the review! I will get to work on the recommend edits; I agree with them all and I'll see what I can do. I have an absolutely bonkers week coming up, so I apologize in advance if it takes me more than a few days. Hopefully, though, I can work it into good shape ASAP! Ninafundisha (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status query[edit]

Joe Roe, Ninafundisha, where does this review stand? I see that Ninafundisha made a bunch of edits on January 22 and 23, and one further edit on February 11, but nothing since, and there's no indication here of what progress has been made and what is left. This review is nearly three months old, and should probably be wrapped up before too much longer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset Joe Roe Thanks for the note - apologies for the delay; my semester has gotten away from me. I did make some pretty substantial edits to the organization of the page, and I think that it's pretty much ready to go. I got hung up on the changes requested to the references - I can add DOIs and such, but is there a quick way to switch to shortened footnote style? I'm not all that competent when it comes to organizing references, and so any advice on that front would be welcome. In any case, I will take a look through the article again this weekend, and I'll post a reply to each of the points in the review. Thanks again for your patience! Ninafundisha (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- While I can see the value in going SFN, I don't think this is required as part of the criteria (see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not - in particular If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA) AIRcorn (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second reading[edit]

I've taken another look at the article and made a few changes myself. The lead and organisation are much approved. The changes to the units and switch to SFN were just suggestions – I think the current version of the article more than meets the requirement for GA status. @Ninafundisha: @Aircorn:. – Joe (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: @Aircorn: @BlueMoonset: Thanks to all of you, especially Joe Roe for the review! Very much appreciated. Ninafundisha (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]