Talk:The Bog People/GA1

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 18:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nominator: Midnightblueowl (talk)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  18:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written
 * a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

Check for WP:LEAD:


 * 1) Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for Introductory text:  ✅
 * 4) * The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the body.
 * 5) * The following information in the lead does not appear in the body: "First published in 1965 by Gyldendal under the Danish title of Mosefolket: Jernalderens Mennersker bevaret i 2000 År, it was translated into English by the English archaeologist Rupert Bruce-Mitford and published by Faber and Faber in 1969. In 1966 it was translated into German by Thyra Dohrenburg and published by Winkler Werlag Munich under the title Die Schläfer im Moor (English: The Sleepers in the Bog)."
 * 6) * Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO): ✅
 * 7) ** Major Point 1: Synopsis "The Bog People is divided into six chapters. The first is devoted to Tollund Man, and the second to Grauballe Man, two of the best known Iron Age bog bodies to have been discovered in Jutland, Denmark. The third and fourth chapters are devoted to the wider context of bog bodies first in Denmark and then in other parts of Europe. The final two chapters are devoted to a wider exposition of life and death in Iron Age Denmark." (summarised well in the lead)
 * 8) ** Major Point 2: Reception "Glob's book received positive reviews from both Barry Cunliffe in Nature and Ralph M. Rowlett in American Anthropologist. They praised Glob's arguments as well as his writing style and use of illustrations, alongside Bruce-Mitford's translation. In subsequent decades, it has received both praise and criticism from specialists in the field, who have lauded the publicity which it brought to the subject, but rejected many of Glob's conclusions as being based on insufficient evidence." (summarised well in the lead)
 * 9) * Check for Relative emphasis: ✅
 * 10) ** Major Point 1: Synopsis "The Bog People is divided into six chapters. The first is devoted to Tollund Man, and the second to Grauballe Man, two of the best known Iron Age bog bodies to have been discovered in Jutland, Denmark. The third and fourth chapters are devoted to the wider context of bog bodies first in Denmark and then in other parts of Europe. The final two chapters are devoted to a wider exposition of life and death in Iron Age Denmark." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
 * 11) ** Major Point 2: Reception "Glob's book received positive reviews from both Barry Cunliffe in Nature and Ralph M. Rowlett in American Anthropologist. They praised Glob's arguments as well as his writing style and use of illustrations, alongside Bruce-Mitford's translation. In subsequent decades, it has received both praise and criticism from specialists in the field, who have lauded the publicity which it brought to the subject, but rejected many of Glob's conclusions as being based on insufficient evidence." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
 * 12) * Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN): ✅
 * 13) ** Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE): ✅
 * 14) *** The Bog People: Iron-Age Man Preserved is an archaeological study of the bog bodies of Northern Europe written by the Danish archaeologist P.V. Glob.
 * 15) ** Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE): ✅
 * 16) ** Check for Proper names and titles: ✅
 * 17) ** Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
 * 18) ** Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
 * 19) ** Check for Pronunciation: None
 * 20) ** Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK): ✅
 * 21) ** Check for Biographies: NA
 * 22) ** Check for Organisms: NA
 * 23) Check for Biographies of living persons:  NA
 * 24) Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  ✅
 * 25) * Check for Non-English titles:
 * 26) * Check for Usage in first sentence:
 * 27) * Check for Separate section usage:
 * 28) Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  ✅
 * 29) Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER):  None

✅

Check for WP:LAYOUT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Headings and sections: ✅
 * 3) * Check for Section templates and summary style: ✅
 * 4) * Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS): ✅
 * 5) Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  ✅
 * 6) * Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Works or publications: ✅
 * 8) * Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): ✅
 * 9) * Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): ✅
 * 11) * Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Links to sister projects: ✅
 * 13) * Check for Navigation templates: ✅
 * 14) Check for Formatting:  ✅
 * 15) * Check for Images (WP:LAYIM): ✅
 * 16) * Check for Links: ✅
 * 17) * Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE): ✅

✅

Check for WP:WTW: ✅


 * 1) Check for Words that may introduce bias:  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Puffery (WP:PEA): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL): ✅
 * 4) * Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED): ✅
 * 6) * Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY): ✅
 * 8) Check for Expressions that lack precision:  ✅
 * 9) * Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM): ✅
 * 11) * Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
 * 13) Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  ✅

Check for WP:MOSFICT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT): ✅

✅


 * Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE):
 * Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research
 * a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
 * b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

✅

Check for WP:RS: ✅


 * 1) Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING):  (not contentious) ✅
 * 2) * Is it contentious?: No
 * 3) * Does the ref indeed support the material?:
 * 4) Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 5) * Who is the author?:
 * 6) * Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
 * 7) * What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
 * 8) * What else has the author published?:
 * 9) * Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
 * 10) Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

✅

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: ✅


 * 1) Check for Direct quotations:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Likely to be challenged:  ✅
 * 3) Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP):  NA


 * c. No original research: ✅

✅


 * 1) Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  ✅
 * 2) Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  ✅
 * 3) Check for original images (WP:OI):  ✅

3: Broad in its coverage

✅


 * 1) Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
 * 2) Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
 * 3) Check for Out of scope:
 * 4) Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
 * 5) Check for All material that is notable is covered:
 * 6) Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
 * 7) Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
 * 8) Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
 * 9) Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

✅


 * 1) Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
 * 2) Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

✅

4. Fair representation without bias: ✅


 * 1) Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 2) Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  ✅
 * 3) Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  ✅
 * 4) Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  ✅
 * 5) Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  ✅
 * 6) Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  ✅
 * 7) Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 8) Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  ✅
 * 9) Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  ✅
 * 10) Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  ✅
 * 12) Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI):  None
 * 13) Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV):  None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images ✅ (NFC with a valid FUR) & (PD)

✅

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: ✅


 * 1) Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  ✅
 * 2) Check for copyright status:  ✅
 * 3) Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  ✅
 * 4) Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  ✅

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: ✅


 * 1) Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  ✅
 * 2) Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  ✅

Midnightblueowl, I'm glad to see your work here. I do have some insights based on the above checklist that I think will improve the article :
 * I think the lead needs to be fixed.

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. All the best, --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  23:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review Seabuckthorn; however I haven't made the suggested change, because I am unsure where in the current structure of the page the information on English and German translations could be placed. I could create a section all of its own, but then that might be deemed too short... Would you happen to have any advice ? . Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Midnightblueowl, very much for your diligence, care and precision in writing such great articles. I confess I'm not quite sure myself. I guess we should leave it as it is. That's the best advice I can give. --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  22:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Promoting the article to GA status. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  22:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, Seabuckthorn ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)