Talk:11th millennium BC/GA2

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 18:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is once again a quickfail (see first review). The article has some substantial issues and is a long way from several of the GA criteria. The lead is not an adequate summary of the article. While the first paragraph is fine, the second is too specific and not broad enough. The Nature/Animals section is not at all comprehensive and just contains three highly disconnected sentences, one of which is extremely vague. The 'Technology, agriculture, and pottery' section is better than most of the others, but is not in-depth enough and is still just a collection of disjointed sentences. For example, the mention of the first known pottery, from Japan, should be followed by additional detail. New subjects are introduced without context; "Tower 5", for instance. In general, the article feels like a random selection of material pulled from any academic paper or book that mentioned something in the millennium, not an organized overview of current knowledge on the topic.

As the previous reviewer stated, "It is hard to tell whether the sparse set of pieces of information listed in this era are because the information known about this time really is that sparse, or because the article was not thorough in tracking down more complete sourcing." They also described it as a "a haphazard collection of factoids", which is also accurate. I do want to commend the nominator for the improvements they made to the article before re-nomination. It is in better shape than it was then, but it is still far from GA-worthy. I encourage the nominator to look at other archaeology-related FAs and GAs such as 9th millennium BC and build on those examples. Thank you for your work improving this article. Before re-nominating the article, perhaps it would be good to reach out to some of the more active editors at WikiProject Archaeology and seek their advice in improving the article. I hope this is not too much of a disappointment - happy editing and I hope it will reach GA at some point! —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

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.
	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.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
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).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	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.

The discussion above 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.