Talk:Potbelly sculpture/GA1

GA Review

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

I'll be properly reviewing the article later this evening, but first impressions are good. Nev1 (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much to say about the article because it's in very good shape.

Description

• This section is very good, listing the features common to these sculptures. The text is concise and to the point, making the subject easily understandable. A style repeated throughout the article.

Dating

• When mentioning that it was thought the sculptures might be pre-Olmec, it might be worth providing a date at the same time. Other than this trivial issue, the section does a good job explaining the changing understanding of the dating and the relevant issues.

I've put in the dating span for the Olmec culture, and referenced. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Interpretation

• This section does a good job of explaining the competing theories.

Distribution

• No problems here.

Do the sources have any suggestions on why some of the sculptures may have been left headless? It's mentioned in the description section that some may have been left deliberately headless, and this may be worth adding a sentence or two on if possible. Once this is answered one way or another, the article easily passes the GA criteria. I only made a handful of edits, but you'll want to check I didn't inadvertently change the meaning of anything. Nev1 (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Your changes are fine - as for why it is thought some sculptures are deliberately headless, I've gone back to my sources and there is no detail on this. The source basically says "some of the sculptures are headless and some of these might have been deliberately headless" so not much help! Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, congratulations on a good article. Nev1 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review, all the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: