Talk:Pueblo pottery

Pre-GA comments
I haven't forgotten about this, though I'm getting busy this week so it may be in the weekend when I'm able to look up this. I hope that's alright. Best - Aza24 (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, there's no deadline! I've expanded the Lead section, as well as removed some of the photos, as another editor had suggested those changes. Netherzone (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from JM
I have a spare few minutes, so I'm going to finally start looking at this article as I promised. Thanks for your patience!
 * The first sentence is a little too long. I advise splitting off the "two thousand years" claim into a separate sentence. The second sentence, meanwhile doesn't sound very neutral (and is it missing an apostrophe?).
 * There seems to be some inconsistency between your use of Pueblo and pueblo. Perhaps your usage is consistent and I'm missing the rule, but it may be worth taking a close look at!
 * Where do these "periods" come from? Who splits up the history of the craft in this way? Also, I note that we have 700 years of history that are pre era 1!

Stopping there -- sorry, I said I only had a few minutes... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , ✅ I think! Thanks so much for your feedback and help. If you are interested, and have another minute or so - no hurry at all - I'd love to hear other suggestions if you don't mind. If you are too busy I understand.
 * Made changes per bullet point #1. I tried to fix the Pueblo vs pueblo issue, using Pueblo only when it was part of a proper name, such as the actual name of a Pueblo (as in San Ildefonso Pueblo) or when it referred to the Puebloan people.
 * The 700 prior years you mention in the 3rd bullet point is the "Basketmaker" eras. I've modified the article so that missing pre-Pueblo period is no longer a lacuna. Basically, these peoples made pottery by packing clay around baskets and firing them so the baskets were gone and all that remained was the ceramic vessel. Ingenious but not really relevant to this article. BTW the periods are called the Pecos Classification, I've added that to the article. Netherzone (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The 700 prior years you mention in the 3rd bullet point is the "Basketmaker" eras. I've modified the article so that missing pre-Pueblo period is no longer a lacuna. Basically, these peoples made pottery by packing clay around baskets and firing them so the baskets were gone and all that remained was the ceramic vessel. Ingenious but not really relevant to this article. BTW the periods are called the Pecos Classification, I've added that to the article. Netherzone (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The 700 prior years you mention in the 3rd bullet point is the "Basketmaker" eras. I've modified the article so that missing pre-Pueblo period is no longer a lacuna. Basically, these peoples made pottery by packing clay around baskets and firing them so the baskets were gone and all that remained was the ceramic vessel. Ingenious but not really relevant to this article. BTW the periods are called the Pecos Classification, I've added that to the article. Netherzone (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aza24
Apologies, I really have no excuse for getting to this so late, other than general forgetfulness :)
 * You're a bit inconsistent with CE, BCE vs AD, BC—either is fine, it should just be consistent.


 * Also, for date ranges we use en dashes – not hyphens -


 * another issue throughout, I don't really know the actual "rule" on this, but most reviewers will expect page numbers or ranges to be given for each citation. Otherwise the effectiveness of WP:V is greatly diminished
 * With just having read the lead, I think it needs to give a little more context for what time period we're talking about. When are the oldest examples of pueblo pottery from? Maybe it's worth mentioning the five periods I see later, especially if they're such an important division in the history of pueblo pottery. "For centuries" and "During modern times" are too vague!
 * "serving the needs of daily life" may be redundant as you just said they're for "ceremonial and utilitarian usage"


 * I'm not sure that the link to Cochiti Pueblo helps, the sentence makes it sound like Cochiti Pueblo is a being of some sort, but the article is on a place; is there a better link or section of the article it could link to?


 * See WP:LEADCITE; though not required, it's de facto practice that I'd certainly recommend. The idea of having no citations in the lead is that the leads sums up the rest of the article so nicely that everything should be sourced below. If you take a look at current articles at FAC (and indeed most GAs) you'll see very few—and more likely no—refs in the lead.
 * I love the gallery in the methods section; for here I wonder if more information on current/more modern methods can be included. And if the methods have stayed the same, that should certainly be said out right here.
 * (in the beginning of the history section) Perhaps give some general context for when the first pueblo people are known to have lived; I'm also kind of wondering if there were other forms of art known before the time of pottery—obviously not much needs to be written for these two things though
 * Will get to some more later today.... Aza24 (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I do wonder if anything can be said in the history section about the pottery from AD 200—750
 * Any link for Chuska? Aza24 (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)