Talk:Qʼumarkaj/GA1

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

Reviewer: ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The article looks very promising! I will be undertaking the review within the next couple of weeks.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Maunus! Simon Burchell (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Review
1. Well-written:
 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * I think the readability would be improved by combining some of the small subsections into larger sections of flowing prose. I would especially suggest combining the section about rulers with the history section to get a better flow.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've combined the rulers section - rulership structure etc. is now merged into the "inhabitants" section, while the rulers themselves have been merged into the history section. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ''This looks much better - I've taken the liberty to move the table of rulers and let the text wrap around it to make for a better layout.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Maunus - I'd thought about wrapping the text myself but hadn't got around to finding out how... Simon Burchell (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * I think the lead could do a better job of summarising the entire content of the article. Also I don't like red links in the lead. ·Maunus· ƛ · 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've created a new Chitinamit stub and removed the redundant Jakawitz redlink. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good solution.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 *  I've now expanded the intro somewhat. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ''I think that given the amount of the article that goes to describing the site's layout and its buildings - this topic should also figure in the lead.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a summary of main buildings and layout. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ''I am satisified with the article as a GA now, and am going to pass it.·Maunus· ƛ · 06:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, much appreciated, Simon Burchell (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
 * (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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
 * (c) it contains no original research.
 * It is very well referenced and uses sources of the highest level of credibility.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

3. Broad in its coverage:
 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * It is sufficiently broad and focused.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * No problems here.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * Definitely.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * The images are properly licensed as far as I can tell. They are not of very impressive quality though - and better images should probably be found if ever opting for FA status. ·Maunus· ƛ · 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of these images I imported from flickr, I also used one of my very old (pre-digital) photos from when I visited the site 10+ years ago (I really must get back some day). There must be better photos around somewhere, but these will have to do for now... Simon Burchell (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)