Talk:Kaunakes/GA1

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

Reviewer: Doug Coldwell (talk · contribs)

I will be doing the GA review for this article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

}}


 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * colspan="3" | 6. :


 * }


 * I will be using the above table to complete the review.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at your review, mostly fine I think you might have missed one or two things which I've noted down below. Other than that, there's no formal or correct way to use the table. I just like having it there as a reference tool for myself so that I don't need tabs open all over the place and it's also neater and more compact when addressing each individual criteria. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

A couple of Non-reviewer comments;
 * 1. Regarding references and sources; The works of Legrain, Crawford, Corbiau, Langdon, Taha and Dimand aren't cited anywhere in the actual body of the article, I believe these are meant to be "Further reading" as the actual sources that are cited in the article can be found under "Bibliography".
 * 2. Citation 8 is to "Getty Images";
 * a."An image dated to 3,000 BC from the Temple of Ishtar at Mari, Tell Hariri, in Syria shows kaunakes wrapped as a cloak around the shoulders of an alabaster image of a woman in a seated posture; the kaunakes is inferred as made from goat hair or wool." This text is not properly supported by "Woman sitting wearing kaunakes, fleece cloak made from goat hair or wool, and polos headdress with veil, alabaster statue, from Temple of Ishtar at Mari, Tell Hariri, Syria, Sumerian civilization, 3rd millennium BC" this one. Specifically; 3rd Millenium B.C. could just as easily be 2001 B.C. as 3000 B.C. and leaves for a huge margin of error and should in fact be rewritten to be 3rd Millenium B.C. Lastly, is Getty Images an appropriate source for an encyclopaedia or is it a case-by-case based on the author of the image?
 * 3. I agree with the reviewer that the article should be better broken up into smaller sections. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Additional review text copied from article talk page
Note: the following subsequent comments were posted to a copy of this review that was added to the article talk page (instead of a proper transclusion). Since the copy does not belong there, it is being deleted and the comments preserved here with the actual review page. (Apologies if this results in new pings.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I have addressed few issues such as the one related to shifting of the references not cited in the articles to "Further reading section", and 3000 B.C. changing to 3rd Millenium B.C. I think the text with the Getty Images are as reliable as the text in the Online Gallery of British Library which I have used extensively in writing articles related to India. As is also major contributor to the article I have requested her to address some of the other review issues. Nvvchar . 12:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * has addressed other issues related to the History section. Please see if all issues raised have been corrected in the article. Will be glad to address any further review observations. Thanks. Nvvchar . 01:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)