Talk:Cueva de las Manos/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 17:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next couple of days. Pinging @Tyrone Madera: as requested. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2021 (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.	As is my usual process with GA reviews, I'm going to go through and make prose tweaks myself to save us both time. If you disagree with any changes I make, just let me know and we can discuss. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Done. Pass on prose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass - no issues here.
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.	Pass - well-referenced.
	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).	Under "Cultural context", the first sentence seems to be supported by source 20, but I can't see anything in source 39 that explicitly states that little is known about this cave's creators. Pass, issue addressed.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research found. Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues found by earwig or in manual spot-check of 15 sources. AGF for the rest. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I think some of the material from 'Studies and preservation' should be moved to 'History', or perhaps the two sections could be combined altogether. You could make 'studies and preservation' a subsection. Otherwise the History section cuts off quite abruptly in 1941. The coverage is fairly comprehensive, but this organizational change would improve comprehension. Addressed. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass, no issues here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues with neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass - no issues with stability.
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.	It's unclear to me that File:RioPinturas-003.jpg is freely available. The description "selbst fotografiert" suggests it was taken by the uploader, but that's not explicitly claimed and the information needs to be formatted properly on Commons. Similarly File:SantaCruz-CuevaManos-P2210063b.jpg is probably ok but not formatted correctly on Commons. Issues addressed, pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	In the guanaco picture, "Monte Leon fm. (Oligocene-Miocene)" is confusing. "fm." is "formation"? It's unclear why geologic information is included at all. The caption can be shortened and made more relevant to the text, which involves the hunting of guanacos, not the local geology. Why is the Canyon image placed under Stylistic Group C? It fits better earlier in the article, say under "Location" - could be placed on the left side of the page to avoid crowding. Other than that images and captions look good. Issues addressed, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

Hi Ganesha811! I've reformatted File:RioPinturas-003.jpg & File:SantaCruz-CuevaManos-P2210063b.jpg on their respective commons pages to make them compliant. The guanaco picture's caption has also been shortened, and the Canyon image placed under Stylistic Group C has now been moved to be left-aligned under "Location". Hope this helps! Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Ganesha811, You're right, source 39 is by and large implicit. It says things like "little is known about early American art." I have removed it. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tyrone Madera: unless you have any objections to the prose tweaks I made, I'd say this passes GA review! Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on the article. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Ganesha811, No objections. Thank you! Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)