Talk:Dresden Codex/GA2

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

Reviewer: Icebob99 (talk · contribs) 18:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article for good article status. I'll start off by checking the immediate failure criteria, then I'll go through the GA criteria one by one, and I'll finish with a few suggestions that are entirely optional for GA status. Icebob99 (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Immediate failure checks
No copyvios found with Earwig's detector. No cleanup banners present. Edit history is stable. Going on to full review.

Review
(1a) The meaning of each sentence is understood, and the spelling and grammar looks good.

(1b):

Lead concerns
Since deterioration and pagination gets a whole section, the lead should have a sentence about the state of the codex. = ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

In addition, I think it's important to include the fact that the codex is called the Dresden Codex because it was rediscovered in the city of Dresden. After all, it's not intuitive that a Mayan document should be named after a German city. ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, can you include the statement about it being the oldest book from the Americas somewhere in the article (maybe in the History section)? You can also move the corresponding citations there, but be sure to still keep the statement in the lead. ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Once all that is done, you may want to split the lead into two paragraphs, in case the article grows longer than 15kB readable prose. ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Layout
Notes and references section: perhaps rename to simply References, as there are no notes in the section. This is not an essential part of the GA requirements, but it would be nice to mind. ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Words to watch: None found.

(2a): Reflist present. (2b): All sources look reliable. Everything is cited inline that needs inline citations. (2c): Since everything is cited inline, there's no original research.

(3a): Covers the main aspect of the topic as far as I'm concerned. (3b): stays focused on the Dresden Codex. See the suggestions below for a few clarifying examples that would be nice to put in.

(4): Neutrality is good. All significant viewpoints are covered.

(5): Stability is good as mentioned above.

(6): Very descriptive images. I especially like the one with the entire codex, it fits nicely in the article. The captions are relevant and the licensing is good.

Optional suggestions
this section now. Reading through and will do accordingly as suggested for improving.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC) ✅ copy edited and expanded as necessary to improve the article. --16:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me again emphasize that these suggestions are entirely optional, as each sentence of the article means what it says, which satisfies the clear and concise requirement of (1a). "can be folded like an accordion" perhaps "can be folded accordion-style", and perhaps a wikilink in there just because. ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Last two sentences of the lead can be merged together, something like "earlier, describing local history..." ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph of the History section: Paul Schellhas assigning gods to various glyphs; can you provide a couple examples? ✅ copy-edited and expanded accordingly. ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Sentence after: what did Yuri Knorozov do with his translation (aka why is it important)? = It is important because Knorozov's approach was followed up in the 1980s by other scholars that did additional deciphering based on this concept. Amplified article to reflect this, as per the newspaper article reference (center). ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Fifth paragraph of History section: perhaps combine the two sentences while keeping citations in their original places, i.e. "contains accurate astronomical tables, which are recognized by students...". ✅ Copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you somehow wikilink or explain who Edward King, Viscount Kingsborough? Is that supposed to mean Edward King, Viscount of Kingsborough? Also, in the next sentence, to whom does the pronoun He refer, as in "he published it..."? If it refers to Edward King, you may want to combine the sentences to form something like "Viscount Kingsborough, who published it...". = Previously linked in article. The first copy of the codex was published by Lord Kingsborough in his 1831 Antiquities of Mexico. = then corrected accordingly with ''" Lord Kingsborough, who published it...". Will this work? ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Second paragraph of Deterioration and pagination section: "Today, we understand", some readers may not like this. Perhaps change to "today, historians such as _____ understand". ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, these suggestions are entirely optional, but since you have to address the layout concerns, you may as well do the suggestions. Once the concerns in (1b) are met, I will pass the article. Icebob99 (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ready for a re-review to make sure I covered all the concerns.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All the concerns have been met. I fixed the citation style for a ref that I didn't catch on the first reading. Congratulations, this article passes as a good article! Icebob99 (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)