Talk:Crypt of Civilization/GA2

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

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 01:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Starts GA Review; the review will follow the same sections of the Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC) (Previous GA Fail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crypt_of_Civilization/GA1 ) 


 * Matters from the previous Good Article Review need to be resolved satisfactorily:

Talk:Crypt_of_Civilization/GA1

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Text is unclear in places: "He imagined a current events story", ✅

"The Bureau of Standards gave professional technical assistance for the artifacts" ✅

Words are repeated "story of the customs of people's manners, customs, and knowledge", overuse of the words "included" and "including", which often both occur in the same sentence. ✅ (all repetitions removed)

It is impossible to verify the to the History Channel reference. ✅ (the link is now active) The parts on the 'Westinghouse Time Capsules' are too long. ✅
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Numerous statements are not supported by the citations given. ✅ (Reference Peters is inaccessible. )
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * There is not enough information in the 'Beginnings' section as to how the project was conceived and designed. ✅

The text is disorganised.


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit wards
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Only one image ✅ (there are more, now)
 * Only one image ✅ (there are more, now)

Beginnings

 * (He) He was engaged in research in the 1920s for one of his books  (Who was engaged? Hudson or Jacobs?)
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * One being the finds in tombs of the Pharaohs of Egypt and the kings of Sumeria and Babylonia. This is poor grammar. This needs rewriting / expression as a citation. Where is this from? What is the source?
 * ✅ Reworded. The complete paragraph has a citation on it to cover all as Ref #2 = Peters (1940) p.7 says, Practically our entire knowledge of ancient life rests upon two vey incomplete sources, the first being deposits obtained from the tombs of the long forgotten Pharaohs of Egypt and the kings of ancient Sumeria and Babylonia, and the second from rock inscriptions, and clay tablets excavated in ancient Assyria. These portray many phases of life in all levels of society, but the lacunae are almost as numerous as the records themselves. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The second was from rock inscriptions and tablets found in ancient Assyria. This is poor grammar. This needs rewriting / expression as a citation. Where is this from? What is the source?
 * ✅ See above. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * there were no complete and accurate records on any single generation of human life. --> of human life.
 * ✅ See above. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Reference 8 is a dead link. The archived link does not load anything; it is a blank page with a pointer.
 * ✅ Reworded for Ref #7 and removed Ref #8. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * reference 9 is about handing out honorary degrees; it is situation in a sentence about construction of the Crypt and does not refer to the Crypt.
 * ✅ The Atlanta Constitution says, "On the campus, workmen built a Crypt of Civilization -- 20 feet long, 10 high, 10 wide." Later it goes on to say, "Four years in the making,..." Still later it says, On May 28, 1940 the crypt was sealed." --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Reference 16 states there is a small windmill to generate electricity for devices in the crypt. Further on, this is described as a wind turbine: He also provided a wind turbine to generate electricity to run the devices .... Cited are Reference 10 and 11, neither of which refer to a turbine.
 * ✅ Reworded. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Noted by Peters by the fact of --> Peters observed that ...
 * ✅ Reworded. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It is observed that all references except Peters were accessible.
 * ✅ Peters book I found at the SDSU library in Brookings, South Dakota. I would imagine there is a copy of this book at Oglethorpe University in Brookhaven, Georgia. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Send me an email if you want a copy of the Peters book. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Many times I use actual hard copy books from the library or ILL books since all books are not online, and these are examples of some of the books I have used on the 500 articles I have created. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Final

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * 1) Overall:
 * 1) Overall:
 * 1) Overall:


 * Appreciate the good work that has gone into resolving all matters from the previous GA review. Well done. ✅


 * This article stands a good chance of passing this review if matters referred to above are corrected. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for review. I will start on the corrections and issues.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Using the ✅ tag will mislead others. Normal use is to leave this tag to the reviewer. The best solution is for you to simply note the corrections you have undertaken, and when they are validated by the reviewer, then the ✅ tag is applied. Then other reviewers or admins can come and see the corrections are approved and validated. Cheers. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ FWIW I made 34 Good Articles in the last GA drive (October 2020) in the 31 days of the month. So far this month I have made 14 Good Articles. I have done over 100 Good Articles all total using this method and no other editor or administrator has had any objections to this method I use.
 * All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI, I created an article on Peter's 'Language Integrator' as a spin-off article and made it a Did You Know. It received 19,919 views on the day it became a DYK and became one of the highest non-lead articles ever for views.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Don't pre-empt the reviewer's task. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)