Talk:North Acropolis, Tikal/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 14:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Will review this tomorrow.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  19:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Lead


 * aound -typo
 * Fixed. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "the tombs of Yax Nuun Ayiin I, Siyaj Chan K'awiil II, Wak Chan K'awiil and "Animal Skull"." dates of rule or burial in brackets after each would be useful here.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My feeling is that you need to elaborate more on the monuments to effectively summarize the article.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Late preclassic
 * Wikilink Late Preclassic.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Postclassic
 * Strange to begin section with "However".
 * I've cut the "however". Simon Burchell (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Structures
 * No estimated dates for construction date of 27-31?
 * I've dropped in some dates; in some cases this is pretty vague since not all of these structures have been excavated. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Burial 48
 * The king wwas -typo
 * Fixed. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Paris is capitalized in the dictionary for plaster of Paris I believe.
 * plaster of paris
 * Of course it is... fixed it! Simon Burchell (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks in good shape overall, most interesting, especially the red painted skull.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review - I've fixed the simple stuff and will come back and do the rest tomorrow. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I've dealt with everything - if not, please let me know. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * 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:

Good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's great - many thanks! All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)