Talk:Quiriguá/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Need to put in conversions to imperial units and some combining of some short paragraphs.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Need to clarify the status of the coin image.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Specific concerns -

File:Guatemala 10 centavo.jpg - Does Guatemala copyright their coinage? If so, it may not be possible to release the image as free, and you'd need a fair use rationale for it.

I've gone through the legal bits to do with currency at the Banco de Guatemala website, Article 21 expressly forbids the reproduction of banknotes but there is no such prohibition on coinage, nor any mention of copyright. The linked webpage is in Spanish. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, a Bank of Guatemala web page here bears images of all banknotes and coinage. A footnote says:

"Es libre la reproducción de los artículos, gráficas y cifras que figuren en este Sitio Web, siempre que se mencione la fuente."

"The free reproduction of articles, graphics and numbers on this website is permitted, as long as the source is mentioned."

There is a picture of both sides of the coin in question on the page. Simon Burchell (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your website notes (current refs 7, 62, 66 and 67) need publishers and last access dates to satisfy WP:V.

I've moved the links into cite web templates in the references section, with publishers and access dates.

The early prose is a bit rough, mainly because there are a number of short one or two sentence paragraphs. Suggest combining the "name" and the "location" sections into "Name and location" to eliminate the very jarring first section of one sentence.

Done, sections combined and choppy sentences rephrased slightly and combined. Simon Burchell (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your distances/measurements have conversions to imperial units, but some don't. You need to do all of them. There is a handy template {{convert}} that makes it easy.

All done, I think... Simon Burchell (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population section, is there a link to "late classic" period of Maya history? A date range for the various periods would be nice also (like so... "...during the Late Classic ((dates))...")

Linked, and date ranges inserted. Simon Burchell (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early history .. link to Tikal? Copan? Other city states mentioned throughout the article? They should be linked at the first occurance. Once they are linked in the article, they don't need to be linked in the see also section. See also is only for articles not mentioned in the text.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency... either use AD (date) or don't use it, but pick one to stick with throughout the article.

Removed all instances except the very first in the intro, to make clear the time period. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apogee ... is there an article on emblem glyphs? LInk would be nice.

Linked to section in Maya script article. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When was it declared a World Heritage site?

Year given. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates should not be in the form "27th December", but should be 27 December ... I caught some, the others should be fixed.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, excellent article! Very informative.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All these imperial units look a bit odd to me, but then I am a metric guy. I can see a point to have the altitude in feet and meters in an article about a mountain for instance. But is it really necessary to convert everywhere to imperial units? Can't remember seeing it in other good articles. bamse (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CONVERSIONS is the appropriate situation. It's really so that everyone, including us "backward" yanks, can understand easier. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Will try to make my articles yank-friendly then. bamse (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]