Talk:Kon-Tiki expedition/GA1

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

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 15:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This article does not meet GA standards. The lead is too long, and not written as a summary of the article. Large parts of the article are unsourced/lack an obvious source. Some of the text in the article, especially in the voyage section, seems to cover the material very briefly. The Anthropology section should be broken up a bit, as it's a long section covering at least three separate topics: Heyerdahl's theories, actual history, and DNA admixture. Heyerdahl's theories are the most important part of this section with relevance to this article, and should probably come near the start of the article to provide background to the voyage, similarly to how it comes early in the lead. The other two topics are less relevant to this article, and could be condensed. The DNA part in particular seems to miss the mark of its sources, as the linking within the sources to Heyerdahl is not expressed in the article text. They make specific reference to a theory of a single contact event, relating to modern Colombia. This is not the same as all Polynesians coming from South America, but Heyerdahl is noted as exploring the possibility. This is a recent paper and does not need to be covered in detail, but it's surprising the more relevant parts are left out here. The Austronesian migration and modern DNA evidence could be shifted up with information on Heyerdahl's theory, but could also remain where they currently are. The article surprisingly lacks a section of the Kon-tiki Museum, and a fuller mention of the subsequent Africa trip would also help round out the context of the voyage. On images, there are a few more on Commons that look like they could be great additions to this article. On sources, in addition to pulling more out of the ones already used, there's probably more out there to find. is one I came across through a brief look. At least one source, the niva.no one, is dead, and there is a general lack of consistent formatting. One source is IMDB which is not considered reliable, and another source seems to be just the title of a documentary to cite the existence of that documentary. CMD (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)