Talk:La Blanca, Peten/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 15:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll review this article. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning the review - will add as I go along. Any copy editing I do you are free to revert.


 * lede
 * smooth out wording e.g. "been dated" is repeated a lot. The prose is a little clunky.
 * I've reworded various bits of the intro, hopefully it reads a bit smoother now. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Location
 * "La Blanca is accessed by a dirt road leading 17 kilometres (11 mi) to the Flores to Melchor de Mencos highway, which it joins at La Pólvora." - I couldn't quite make sense of this.
 * I've rephrased it - it should be a bit clearer now. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * repetition of "the Archeological site" two sentences in a row.
 * I've cut the 2nd instance of "archaeological". Simon Burchell (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "The agricultural land closest to the ruins is largely dedicated to livestock grazing, particularly cattle and horses." - who lives there now?
 * No-one that I could see - just a vast expanse of ranchland, that's not specifically mentioned in the sources though (but the location section does say "The site occupies a small pocket of forest amongst an extensive region of cleared agricultural land"). I've dropped in a photo of the area to give an idea. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * reply
 * Whose livestock is grazing and who does the ranchland belong to?
 * No idea, the sources certainly don't day - I'll have a quick google to see if any of the local ranches has an internet presence, but I doubt it, the area is pretty remote. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(will continue) MathewTownsend (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find anything, my map of Guatemala has the "Sal Si Puedes" ranch marked about 4km away, but the finca doesn't have any website I could find. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ok. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
 * Well written, clear.
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Provides references to all sources:
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * B. Remains focused:
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Very nice article!
 * Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mathew! All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Very nice article!
 * Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mathew! All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mathew! All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mathew! All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)