Talk:Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates

Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 8, 2019. (Reviewed version).

United Arab Emirates High‑importance

	United Arab Emirates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Arab Emirates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Arab Emirates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United Arab EmiratesWikipedia:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesTemplate:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesUnited Arab Emirates articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 13:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

I'll review this one. Back soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basic GA criteria[edit]

Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning").
Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction. Not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation. Not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
No original research.
No copyright violations or plagiarism.
Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
Neutral.
Stable.
Illustrated, if possible.
Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

On hold[edit]

I'm placing the review on hold for a week because there are not enough citations and one section alone has three unsourced paragraphs. Could you please attend to the sources and I will then continue the review. I will not make any other comments now except that single sentence paragraphs are deprecated and I've joined two of them to their neighbours. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passes GA[edit]

The citations have been provided and I have been able to complete the review. The article is satisfactory as reflected in the criteria checks above. I was an archaeology student myself, once upon a time, but never had any involvement with this region so it has been interesting to read something new. I would imagine that the Arabian peninsula does not have wide coverage on WP so this article may even be ground-breaking. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]