Talk:History of agriculture/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ProgrammingGeek (talk · contribs) 13:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing this article. ProgrammingGeek^talktome 13:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Earwig reports "violation unlikely" at 19.4% (matches names, titles only).
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Well written article, properly sourced, and has images. ProgrammingGeek^talktome 17:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but, I find it astounding that the reviewer couldn't find a single fault with this article? Without even starting to read the article, I can see numerous refernces are broken/dead which is an immediate hold, at the very least. Some of these dead links date over 2 years, but no mention? Did the reviewer even check each and every source (as should be the case)? I find this hard to believe, somehow. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to agree. I don't think due process was followed here. I have the utmost respect for Chiswick Chap as a content creator, but they are only human: I find it highly unlikely that there is absolutely no room for improvement here. ProgrammingGeek, if you're not willing to look at this in more detail, I don't think you should have picked up the review. We could go through the process of listing it at GAR, delisting it, renominating it, etc, but that really is a pain. I'd suggest you go through the article in more detail right away. Vanamonde (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously links die over time, and they're equally obviously to be fixed or replaced. And no doubt other items can be detected. I'll have another go now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know I much appreciate the efforts, Chiswick Chap, but my problem here at least was with the review by ProgrammingGeek. The reviewer needs to check the article against the standards. PG, if you're unwilling to do this, you should not have taken up the review, and you should probably delist it and return it to its place in the queue. Vanamonde (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links[edit]

16 ScienceMag: works fine via DOI. Removed URL. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
25 Southern Europe, 8000-2000 B.C.: archive URL added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
91 Medieval horticulture: archive URL added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
93 Medieval European history: replaced ref with new ones. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
108 Rotherham Plough: replaced ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
112 Coprolite Fertilizer: replaced ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
116 Historical Perspective: archive URL added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
118 Agriculture and rural development: archive URL added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

File:Roman harvester, Trier.jpg needs a US public domain tag.

used a similar image with CC-by-SA tag. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trabajo-inca8.jpg there is something wrong with the permissions parameters, red tags everywhere on its Commons file page.

added PD-old-100 parameter, image dates from 17th century and is 2-D artwork, so PD-Art applies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It kind of seems to me that Commons has gotten more picky about the US public domain tagging than I remember in the past so I try to get all image-permissions in an article up to Commons' standards to forestall any possible future (deletion/tagging) issues. Shearonink (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shearonink (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very wise. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I'll see to them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date inconsistence about the origin of cotton[edit]

The text said that cotton was domesticated in Perú, later inform that was introduced in Al-Andalus during the middle ages, but that cannot be true, since it wasn't known to humans in the old world until Columbus voyages. Jularias (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]