Talk:Olmec colossal heads/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 00:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'll review this article, starting soon. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * beginning review
 * lede
 * "owing to the discovery there of a colossal head in the 19th century." would "spurred by the discovery there ... etc. be ok.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "The smallest examples weigh 6 tons, while the largest is variously estimated to weigh 40 to 50 tons, although this was abandoned unfinished near to the source of its stone." - not clear what "this" refers to - the largest head?
 * Yes, that's right. Simon Burchell (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Dating
 * "Due to these factors, the period of production of the colossal heads is not known, nor whether this spanned a century or a millennium." this? Would "it" be ok?
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Manufacture
 * "In terms of the workforce, they would have included sculptors, labourers, overseers, boatmen, woodworkers ..."
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest: "The workforce included sculptors", etc. or "The workforce must have included..." or something similar?


 * I'm not comfortable with such frequent use of "would". Seems like it did include (included), as far as we can determine, or must have included, as far as we can speculate. Whereas "would" is unclear. (And Tony1 hates the use of "would" in prose. So, if the use of "would" could at least be reduced. . .)
 * I found only 4 instances of "would", two of which I've reworded. The other two instances seem to be appropriate to the tense being used - conditional and a "future in the past" tense "the stone that would (later) be fashioned". Simon Burchell (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at this Mathew. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:27, 21 June 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:
 * 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:
 * Pass!
 * Great job! Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Pass!
 * Great job! Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass!
 * Great job! Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Great job! Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)