Talk:Balangoda Man/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) 20:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article is very nicely written. Minor tweaks: "sea shell based beads" --> seashell-based beads or beads made from seashells; "dental differences including somewhat ..." needs a comma before including. Question and probably a preference issue: should "Balangoda Man" be written with a capital M? The usual thing on WP would be to use lower-case, and looking around on Google Books I see some of the sources do that too. I've just had a look; yes, they do also say "Balangoda man" in many books. I'll leave it as "Balangoda Man" for now, though, to be consistent with Kennedy--a well-known researcher in the field. He also consistently refers to the Indian skeleton as "Narmada Man" (e.g. see his book "God-apes and Fossil Men: Paleoanthropology of South Asia"). Personally, however, I am OK with either.Ldesilva (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	I'm taking on good faith that the article contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It seems to be a little top heavy. I'm not familiar with the topic so I can't judge to what extent this is necessary, but it does feel as though there's a lot to read before we get to discussing Balangoda Man.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I'm taking on good faith that the article fairly covers majority and significant-minority views.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	It's a well-written and interesting article, one that clearly meets the GA criteria.