Talk:Archaeology Today/GA1

GA Review
I would like to chime in. While this has a lot of good stuff, there are some major issues: While I admire the work that went into this, I fear that this article needs quite a bit of work before it is reviewed for a GA. Here are some examples of GAs for episode you could potentially base this one off of: "Army of Ghosts", "Triangle", "Lysergic Acid Diethylamide", and "What Lies Ahead".--Gen. Quon (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead: The lead does not adequately summarize the article at all
 * The use of references is sloppy; refs 1, 2, 5, and 6 don't have page numbers, and ref 3 does, making their use inconsistent and 2 and 3 are the same source.
 * There are whole chunks of the article that are unsourced, and there are places that use sources that are not reliable, such as the mention of the wiki in the intro.
 * There is no production info mentioned, nor is there mention of reception, etc. This is just a page of summaries.
 * Prose has some issues: ("Nature continues its natural action and the surroundings grow and eventually has a city built on top of the site.", should be "Nature continues its natural action and the surroundings grow and eventually a city is built on top of the site."; "They were able to ‘accurately reconstruct’ the artifact, using the toe as a trunk for an elephant." Who are they?; etc.)
 * The use of headers is odd, instead of the usual ==x== ===y===, it's italicized lines
 * I'm sorry, but I've looked it over and I don't think this page is up to GA snuff yet. A considerable amount of work needs to be done, work that I don't feel could be adequately done in a week. This page needs to be completely redone. However, if you do get it up to other GA standards, I'd love to drop by and review it again, just drop me a message.--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)