Wikipedia:Peer review/Archaeoastronomy/archive1

Archaeoastronomy

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to try and take it to GA or FA status. It's recently come out of an edit war, but that last bit of battling on the article over that was April 13 and the issue has been resolved at AN/I. Problems found in the GA re-assessment were a lack of references. With other editors I've added more to rectify this. Possible problems now are length and repetition, and people finding other problems I can't see would also be helpful. :)

Thanks, Alun Salt (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is quite an interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement: Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree the article is too long - I think there is a fair amount of room to trim it without making sub-articles. See User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a
 * The lead image does not do anything for me - I would see if one of the images already in the article would be better. Perhaps Image:Summer Solstice Sunrise over Stonehenge 2005.jpg (a FP) or even Image:Newgrange Eingang Stein.jpg would be better.
 * In the lead, if Clive Ruggles is linked at all, it should be at first mention. Also the article title is supposed to be the only bold in the lead (so "ethnoastronomy" should not be bold). See WP:LEAD
 * Please identify who some of te experts quoted are - Clive Ruggles for example - see WP:PCR
 * Quotations should not be in italics, and should only be block quotes if they are more than four lines long - see WP:MOS
 * Per the WP:MOS, do not repeat the article title in the headers, so "History of archaeoastronomy" would just be "History", and "Archaeoastronomy and its relations to other disciplines" would just be "Relations to other disciplines", etc. We already know the article is about Archaeoastronomy, so the headers need not repeat it.
 * While this is generally well sourced, there are several places without refs that still need them. Every paragraph should have a ref, every quote, every statistic, and every extraordinary claim. I would also cite every attribution (According to X...). Some examples (not a complete list): The basic methods were developed by Alexander Thom during his extensive surveys of British megalithic sites. (attribution), the second paragraph of Green school is uncited, or Despite this it is accepted that Archaeoastronomy is not a discipline that sits in isolation. - who accepts it? needs a ref.
 * The Brown and Green sections seem like they could be compressed - there is also a fair amount of repetition about Green and Brown schools in later sections.
 * Images should all be set to thumb width so reader preferences come into play (WP:MOS)
 * Several sections are quite short and could be combined - for example could it be "Solar and lunar positioning"?
 * The semi-automated peer review has several useful suggestions - see above.
 * Personal question - since the Earth wobbles, etc. why do ancient monuments still align with the Sun etc. on particular days (like Newgrange)?