Talk:Nampa figurine

GA Review
First and foremost, thank you for grabbing this review, its greatly appreciated. I would argue that FN 1 is reliable as it gives a rather neutral take on the Nampa figurine and a cursory glance shows that it does appear to have some level of editorial standard, plus its a newsletter written by archeologists. I expected some pushback on Fitzpatrick-Matthews' source bad archeology, there is a strong case for WP:BLOG, seeing how his blog is widely cited in other wikipedia articles and I've found a few news publications that make mention of it. The rest is fair criticism though, and I'll get working on it. Do you mind expanding on your Lead and layout concerns? Would you like me to ping you when the page gets renomed? Etrius ( Us) 18:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hiya thanks for the response. On those two sources you mention, I'd be leaning the other way since I would expect that Fitzpatrick-Matthews could be justified as a subject area expert whereas the Pleistocene Coalition News does not seem to have a clear editorial policy and says it's "challenging the tenets of mainstream scientific agendas" which triggers my suspicions. Thus, basing almost an entire section on only this second source is cause for concern. Anyway it's a matter for debate as you suggest; you could always ask at RSN or get the opinion of another reviewer. Regarding article structure, I thought you could merge history and description, since it's strange to me that the discovery comes after the description and also I wasn't sure about the conspiracy theory subheading (and whether Sellier and Balsiger had the same theory as Wright). Regarding the lead, I just meant the lead could better summarise the article and the claims in the lead should be backed by what is said below, always for me a final step to check. I'd be happy to give further comments at a later stage but prob would rather someone else took on the next GA review. All the best, Mujinga (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I see. I'll cut Pleistocene for now to be safe. It's unfortunate since PCN is the most explicit in terms of the events leading to discovery so I'll see how much Wright and Powell discuss it. That'll be a few days since I need to go to the library to pull up Powell's article, plus I'm plenty busy in my own life at the moment. Etrius ( Us) 03:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)