Talk:Chetro Ketl/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 19:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Beginning first read-through. Comments to follow in the next day or so.  Tim riley  talk    19:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments
If the article is taken to PR or FAC I shall have a great many comments about the prose, but to my mind it clearly suffices for GA criterion 1. A few points you may like to consider, but nothing to affect the decision about promotion: Nothing there to necessitate putting the review on hold. I'll look in again tomorrow and see how we are getting on. –  Tim riley  talk    11:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Etymology
 * "In anthropologist Brian Fagan's opinion the meaning of the name is unknown, and archeologist R. Gwinn Vivian states that the origin of the name is unknown" – am I missing a subtle distinction between meaning and origin or is this a long-winded way of telling us that both Fagan and Vivian say that nobody knows the reason for the name?
 * Well spotted!
 * Location and position
 * "Chetro Ketl lies .4 miles (0.64 km)" – include the zero in both or neither, I'd say.
 * Done.
 * Excavation
 * "that fall" – the MoS bids us avoid dating things by seasons, to avoid confusing readers in the opposite hemisphere; the specific month(s) would be better here.
 * Changed.
 * "1929 –1933" – spacing looks awry.
 * fixed.
 * "alters" – is that OK in AmEng? In England we spell the word "altars".
 * doesn't seem right so I've changed as suggested!
 * "turquois beads" – should this be "turquoise", as in the adjacent caption?
 * typo yup.
 * "in both great houses" – ambiguous: seems to indicate there were only two, though on re-reading one sees what is meant.
 * removed latter part of sentence.
 * Disambiguate
 * Arroyo
 * Done.


 * Thanks, should have got them all now, cheers for the prompt review. No intention of taking to FAC right now! I think you're right, but it's adequate for GA I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

If you decide to take this on to PR and FAC, please ping me.  Tim riley  talk    11:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)