Wow, I was thinking it might take weeks to get a review. Thanks for taking a look! Article editors should be around this week for any questions or comments.
• Astynaxtalk06:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)reply
No. There is a GAN backlog elimination drive running at the moment (April 2010); and I was trying to narrow the gap between me and the leader - but that's not likely to happen.
Pyrotec (
talk)
16:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)reply
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have
fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Overall, this article contains a good balanced discussion of a site that is "known" but has not yet been "found".
The main body of the article appears to adequately present the information that is currently known.
The
WP:Lead (the initial paragraphs before the Contents) provides a good introduction to this article (which is one of the its requirements); but what is mising is a concise summary of the main findings (its other requirement). The Lead is rather short and it aught to be be expanded to sumarise the main points (here I'm discounting the historical background, but it could be included), i.e. lower city, upper city, underground cistern, etc. Interestingly, the dyk link discusses the "seam" in the stone work, but this is entirely absent from the
WP:Lead.
Nevertheless, I'm awarding GA-status to the article as it currently stands, it should not be too onerous to bring the Lead up to standard. Congratulations on producing a balance article.
Pyrotec (
talk)
17:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Wow, I was thinking it might take weeks to get a review. Thanks for taking a look! Article editors should be around this week for any questions or comments.
• Astynaxtalk06:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)reply
No. There is a GAN backlog elimination drive running at the moment (April 2010); and I was trying to narrow the gap between me and the leader - but that's not likely to happen.
Pyrotec (
talk)
16:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)reply
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have
fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Overall, this article contains a good balanced discussion of a site that is "known" but has not yet been "found".
The main body of the article appears to adequately present the information that is currently known.
The
WP:Lead (the initial paragraphs before the Contents) provides a good introduction to this article (which is one of the its requirements); but what is mising is a concise summary of the main findings (its other requirement). The Lead is rather short and it aught to be be expanded to sumarise the main points (here I'm discounting the historical background, but it could be included), i.e. lower city, upper city, underground cistern, etc. Interestingly, the dyk link discusses the "seam" in the stone work, but this is entirely absent from the
WP:Lead.
Nevertheless, I'm awarding GA-status to the article as it currently stands, it should not be too onerous to bring the Lead up to standard. Congratulations on producing a balance article.
Pyrotec (
talk)
17:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)reply