Talk:Toniná/GA1

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

Reviewer: Redtigerxyz  Talk 13:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Words like "outstanding", "vibrant" border WP:PEACOCK terms. Remove them or put quotation marks if used by a scholar.
 * OK, they're reworded. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, they're reworded. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "A large stucco sculpture.." large is too vague. Add dimensions
 * It wasn't easy to find dimensions (actual size is not mentioned anywhere in my extensive library, or after a review of online archaeological publications). Nontheless I've found a website giving dimensions and have added them. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Almost every sentence is cited. Though I see repetition of references. I suggest using ref name attribute as in REF, Footnote System. This enables the reader to know that "x" facts are cited from the same reference page. Sample applied for reference 7.
 * The concensus at WikiProject Mesoamerica is against the use of named references, although I'm neutral on the issue. What this means in practice is that while I won't normally add named refs to a Mesoamerica article, I won't revert them if someone else does. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The concensus at WikiProject Mesoamerica is against the use of named references, although I'm neutral on the issue. What this means in practice is that while I won't normally add named refs to a Mesoamerica article, I won't revert them if someone else does. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dates in Modern history need references.
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I see images of the Acropolis. But no textual description in "the site". Is "the site" meant be the the Acropolis?
 * I've added a brief description of the Acropolis, which does comprise the most important architecture of the site core. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a brief description of the Acropolis, which does comprise the most important architecture of the site core. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, a textual description of Pyramid on the Acropolis is needed in Structures
 * No further information is available on this particular structure (or on many of the structures). Simon Burchell (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A small para about how large is the museum, how many artefacts etc. is needed.
 * I've added a subsection in the Site section. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No disputes.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * All by nominator. Present images are fine, though an image with layout of the site may add value.
 * But the images are a little scattered. I would like to expect the Palace of the Underworld near its description.
 * Also is the second last image part of Frieze of the Fours Suns? If yes, explicitly say so
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also is the second last image part of Frieze of the Fours Suns? If yes, explicitly say so
 * Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do images of museum artefacts correspond to sections related to them or describing their source monuments?
 * I've just placed images throughout the article in order to illustrate the architecture and sculpture of the site. Although there are reasonable summaries of the site's history, there is not much available on the nitty-gritty of the archaeology itself (at least not that I have access to). Simon Burchell (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold


 * I observe, an inconsistent use of Toniná and Tonina. Choose one.
 * I changed all instances of Tonina to Toniná within the article text. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The images are a little scattered. I would like to expect the Palace of the Underworld near its description. So I did a minor shifting of images. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The new infobox is nice. But empty sections are a problem. Please fill them. Also Acrolis img could be moved somewhere, to Structures maybe.
 * I will check for OR on a sample basis. Then take the final decision. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No OR Detected. Checked online references for Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, GuideMexico.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PASS. Great job. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)