Talk:Seibal/GA1

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

Reviewer: hamiltonstone (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC) This article looks comprehensive and carefully referenced. Images appear to be in order. It is unusual to have an infobox halfway down the article. Is there a reason it is not located top right? The text is generally good, but a little abrupt and disjointed. I am finding it hard to explain the problem. It tends to jump straight into topics without much context, and then abruptly move on to the next topic. For example, the population section begins by immediately discussing surveys of density of structures. I am not going to hold this up at GA, but it would be a significant problem at FAC. Sections need to be introduced in general terms. This section, for example, might begin with a sentence such as "Seibal was a regionally important settlement where up to 10,000 people lived. Archaeologists have estimated the population size by examining the density and range of structures." or similar. The lists of structures etc are OK, but would possibly encounter problems at FAC. There may be issues with WP:EMBED, but also a lack of prose connecting the various structures and monuments to form an overall picture of the place. Despite these issues, i believe the article is both sufficiently comprehensive and sufficiently focussed, as well as adequately written, to meet the GA criteria. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hamilton, all good points and some day I'll get around to sorting them out, but I don't think I'll be sending this to FA anytime soon. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * By infobox, did you mean the table or the navbox? The Maya civilization navbox I tend to fit where I can in the upper portion of the article if possible, while the table of rulers fits naturally into the history section. Looking at the article, it did seem that the navbox was a little further down than would be ideal - I'll move it as high as possible, pictures allowing. Thanks again for the review. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The box titled "Maya civilisation". I guess i expected that to be top right, with pictures of the site below it. But whatever you think is best is OK. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)