Talk:Archaeoastronomy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Three found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: One found and tagged.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall now read the article thoroughly and post a review here within the next twenty-four hours. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written and organised.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Ref# 81 is a dead link. I can't find any manuals on the Brunton web site. Done

   Fixed with Internet Archive / Alun Salt (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

   Good, that didn't work for me. Results from the Ia are sometimes inconsistent. All other references are RS, assume good faith for off-line sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough, without going into unnecessary micro-detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   Captioned and licensed appropriately

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   An interesting and well written article. I am happy to list this as GA. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)