Talk:Guanche mummies/GA1
GA Review[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MusikAnimal (talk · contribs) 05:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll gladly review this one. Expect comments in the coming days. — MusikAnimal talk 05:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Issues[edit]
Welp, I have to admit, this is pretty good. Just a few concerns:
Lead[edit]
- While not inherently wrong, I question the need for a {{main}} template when Guanche is linked in the first sentence. For example, Egyptian mummies does not have a hatnote for Egyptians, nor does Moai have one for Easter Island. Just feels a little non-standard to me.
Historical record[edit]
“Early explorers also reported some of the mummification methods being utilized by the Guanche, though many of these claims have yet to be supported by evidence.”
- I question the inclusion of such a vague statement that conveys only speculation. This may lean toward WP:VAGUE, though that guideline is more about wording, rather than what should be considered encyclopedic. What are your thoughts?
Other than that everything looks good. Verifying the sources was a pain... I had to create JSTOR account, and the website is apparently "turned off" late at night. Anyway, it all checks out! 
The tone is right where it should be, very neutral, and I'm pretty happy with the prose. I'm no expert on Guanche mummies, but from all the reading I did with the sources it sounds like we've got the bulk of what we would want to cover in the article. — MusikAnimal talk 01:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Due to lack of response, I've gone ahead and made the above changes in order to pass this nomination. Hopefully the nominator, User:Saint_Soren will return to Wikipedia to help write more good articles. — MusikAnimal talk 21:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)