Talk:Heraion of Perachora

Rated
I don't normally do wikiproject quality ratings, but I was quite appalled at seeing this article rated as "start". Seriously, what are people thinking? This article is absolute top quality. Calling this "start class" is an insult to its creator.

I've assessed it for the B class requirements and given it a pass on all. I'm aware that the lack of inline citations may seem like a problem to some, but if you look at the kind of statements (very simple factual descriptions, almost throughout), and the titles of the references listed (very specific excavation reports), it becomes immediately clear what corresponds to what.

Obviously, it meets all other criteria with flying colors. In fact I've gone straight beyond "B" and called it "A", because I really don't see much that could be improved. A criteria:
 * 1) well-written, reasonably clear and complete: yes, with evident expert competence;
 * 2) length and structure: obviously;
 * 3) references: top quality (with the only drawback the lack of inline citations);
 * 4) illustrations: marvellous.

Disclosure: I made one minor contribution to this article myself, by providing the map for it, which was really the only thing I found missing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * More often than not the WikiProject ratings aren't updated after the tag is first put on the page, unless someone specifically asks them to be, or the article goes through peer review. — Joseph Roe Tk • Cb, 08:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Or at least that's how it is for archaeology. — Joseph Roe Tk • Cb, 08:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)