Talk:Southeastern Ceremonial Complex/GA1

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

Reviewer: Rationalobserver (talk · contribs) 21:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead

 * is the name given to
 * Maybe just "refers to", instead of this, which is a bit awkward.


 * Contrary to popular belief, this development appears to have no direct links to Mesoamerica, but developed independently.
 * Is it accurate to say, "popular belief", or is this more about conflicting theories? Also, try to avoid using two variations of "development" in the same sentence.


 * This ceremonial complex
 * I think "the ceremonial complex" is better.


 * Other obsolete names for this ceremonial complex include Buzzard Cult and Southern Death Cult.[4]
 * Maybe it would be better to list all of these at the beginning, rather that including one obsolete name at the top and two more at the bottom.

Theories and names

 * The social organization of the Mississippian culture
 * You should link Mississippian culture here, as this is the first mention outside the lead.


 * Such objects occur in elite burials, together with war axes, maces, and other weapons. These warrior symbols occur
 * Avoid using "occur" twice in this short span.


 * The term Southeast Ceremonial Complex refers to a complex, highly variable set of religious mechanisms that supported the authority of local chiefs.[7]
 * I think this would be better the beginning of the paragraph, versus the end.


 * The S.E.C.C. was first defined in 1945
 * You should introduce the acronym after the first mention of Southeast Ceremonial Complex in the article body.


 * Their concept was of a complex of a specific cult manifestation
 * This is an awkward construction.


 * while using its trait lists as a foundation for critical analysis of the entire concept.
 * Since this ends a paragraph, it should have a citation following it.


 * proposed a more archaeologically based
 * This would flow better if you swapped "a more" for "an". Also, maybe "archaeologically based" should be "archeology based".

Projected development of M.A.C.C. styles

 * The prose in this section needs a citation or two, especially at the end.

Cosmology

 * The first paragraph in this section needs a citation or two, especially at the end.

Motifs

 * As with above, this section needs more citations; [2][11] seems to be orphaned at the bottom, but it's not clear what material they support.

Birdman

 * As with above, this section needs more citations. Also, if "Birdman" is a motif, then this section needs a level four header so it's obviously a sub-section of motifs.

Red Horn and his sons

 * Same as above; if this is an example of a specific motif, it should be formatted as a sub-section of "Motifs". Also, the first and second paragraphs need to end in a citation.

Great Serpent

 * Same as above; if this is an example of a specific motif, it should be formatted as a sub-section of "Motifs". Also, the first paragraph needs a citation.

Artifacts with S.E.C.C. imagery
Looks good

Sites associated with the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex
This section lacks citations.

Refs
I fixed a couple of ref errors, but some others remain, specifically refs 17 and 18.

Sourcing

 * hotcakencyclopedia.com is most likely not a WP:RS. I think the same applies to about.com and fortunecity.com.

The nominating editor has been inactive since December 2014, so I've failed this GAN. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)