Wikipedia:Peer review/Roosevelt Red Ware/archive1

Roosevelt Red Ware

 * 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 November 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 November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because...

This is my first wikipedia article and before adding additional pages on other ceramic types I would like to make sure that I put this article together appropriately for wikipedia.

Thanks, Mdevitt (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Apterygial

I'm going to assume your main questions would be about format and style, rather than a grammar breakdown (which I can do, it usually just takes longer). I'm no expert in ceramics, so I can really only focus on style.

...and so on. This is more useful when the article is this size it is now. If you choose to expand those short sections you can probably keep it as is.
 * I can honestly say that this is the first time I have diagreed with the semi-automated review (the link is at the top of the page). The lead is not "too long". I would say that it is a little on the short side, you should ideally add another short paragraph dealing with research into the topic, such as the use of the ceramics as status symbols. See WP:LEAD.
 * "Roosevelt Red Ware is divided by archaeologists into a a series of types, which cover shorter spans of time, based on configurations of the painted designs and rim profiles of bowls." I would try to avoid one sentence paragraphs; in this case the sentence could be easily integrated into the next section; there is no real need to provide linking sentences on Wikipedia.
 * "(Example: Gila interior with a Tonto exterior would be labeled as Gila Polychrome: Tonto Variant)." This is a little clumsy and looks out of place. Consider saying "For example, a Gila interior with a Tonto exterior would be labeled as 'Gila Polychrome: Tonto Variant'. Try to maintain flow.
 * A few of the sections under Ceramic Typology need expanding. The short ones (such as Pinto Black-on-red) are really just basic discriptions which follow on the previous entries, meaning that the previous one must be read in order to understand the short one (and I've just written a very long sentence; don't do that). My suggestion would be that instead of having lots of level three headings, do something like (and I'll break off my review formatting here, and make it small):
 * Gila Black-on-red: Similar in dates, designs and geographic distribution to Gila Polychrome but without the white slip underlaying black paint.
 * Tonto Polychrome:' is found in higher frequencies on jars. The black on white designs are generally narrower bands than on Gila jars, or panels of decoration, and are surrounded by red slip. This type has a later starting date than Gila Polychrome, A.D. 1340 and an end date of 1450.
 * Cliff Polychrome: is identified by stylistic and morphological characteristics that distinguish it from Gila Polychrome. Dates given for this type range from A.D. 1300-1450.
 * "In their exhaustive study of Casas Grandes..." Exhaustive is a little redundant here, and it is very easy for you to be wrong (they would have to have missed something, however trivial).
 * "Escondida Polychrome is produced with locally available clay". A little problem with tense here.
 * I think parenthetical referencing is largely on the way out on Wikipedia. While the list at the end of the article is largely fine, it does make it quite hard to see where you have used the sources in the article. As the semi-automated review pointed out, footnotes are much better and can be better included in-text than the author-and-year system you've used. See WP:CITE and WP:REFB for more information on footnotes. However, this is just my own point of view. You may find editors who agree or disagree with me, but footnotes are certainly the norm on Wikipedia.
 * I want to congratulate you for getting involved enough to contact an expert. However, it is putting you into the danger zone with regards to one of Wikipedia's most important policies: original research. As the source you use there is not published it makes verification by others harder. Is there any other way you can get that opinion?
 * The article needs wikilinking (the blue links which go to other pages on Wikipedia) to appropriate pages. Help:Contents/Links (there's a link) has a comprehensive guide to wikilinking on Wikipedia. It just makes it easier for the reader to find out, say, where Alamogordo, New Mexico actually is.

Overall, this is a very nice article. For a first article this is beyond fantastic; it is informative, well researched and a good read. My advice to you would be to familiarize yourself with the five pillars of Wikipedia. They should tell you all you need to know about Wikipedia and help you navigate and understand your way. You can respond to my comments here, or on my talk page. I am more than willing to answer any questions you may have. Good luck and happy editing! Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 11:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)