Talk:Ocute/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 05:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Giving this article a review for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Well-written. Shearonink (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Lead section is good, no puffery, complies with WP:MOS - good to go. Shearonink (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Ran the copyvio tool, everything looks good. Shearonink (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Lays out the facts of this chiefdom's/tribe's rise and fall dispassionately. Shearonink (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Stable, no edit wars. Shearonink (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All the permissions are fine. Shearonink (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I am doing a few more proofing-readhthroughs of the article to see if I missed anything, but so far so good. I can see some minor points of possible improvement but they are a matter of personal preference rather than being part of WP:GA criteria. Shearonink (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a GA!
 * Going forward I do think that some images of the pottery types (Vining Stamped ware->Complicated stamped pottery->complex coiled pottery) and images of some of the major Ocute mound sites would increase the human interest and break up the body of the text somewhat. I understand that these images might not be available on Commons but it is an area of possible future improvement. Shearonink (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I am doing a few more proofing-readhthroughs of the article to see if I missed anything, but so far so good. I can see some minor points of possible improvement but they are a matter of personal preference rather than being part of WP:GA criteria. Shearonink (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a GA!
 * Going forward I do think that some images of the pottery types (Vining Stamped ware->Complicated stamped pottery->complex coiled pottery) and images of some of the major Ocute mound sites would increase the human interest and break up the body of the text somewhat. I understand that these images might not be available on Commons but it is an area of possible future improvement. Shearonink (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Going forward I do think that some images of the pottery types (Vining Stamped ware->Complicated stamped pottery->complex coiled pottery) and images of some of the major Ocute mound sites would increase the human interest and break up the body of the text somewhat. I understand that these images might not be available on Commons but it is an area of possible future improvement. Shearonink (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)