Lawrence H. Keeley was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 13, 2022. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that archaeologist
Lawrence H. Keeley refined the methods of microscopic
use-wear analysis to learn about prehistoric
stone tools? |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Kavyansh.Singh (
talk)
05:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Created by Nmarshall25 ( talk). Self-nominated at 19:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
The article currently reads:
Microwear analysis is one of two primary methods (the other being use-wear analysis) for identifying the functions of artifact tools [...] Microwear differs from use-wear because of the scale at which the analysis happens; microwear analysis is the use of microscopy to evaluate and understand these polishes.
But I can't find support for the claim that microwear and use-wear are different methods in the cited sources that I can access (I can't access the SciAm one). As I understand it, "microwear" is simply use-wear analysis that uses a high-powered microscope. Shea [1] and many others [2] use the two terms interchangeably.
Similarly saying "one of two primary methods" is not supported by the sources I can access and the same Shea article notes that the main way archaeologists approach stone tool function is to infer it from form using ethnographic analogies or controlled experiments. Nowadays we can add to that residue analysis, ergonomic analysis, quantitative morphometrics, etc. – Joe ( talk) 15:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 ( talk · contribs) 21:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Picking this one up. Review to follow... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A solid article. Meets GA standard although I have some issues minor listed above.
Lawrence H. Keeley was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 13, 2022. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that archaeologist
Lawrence H. Keeley refined the methods of microscopic
use-wear analysis to learn about prehistoric
stone tools? |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Kavyansh.Singh (
talk)
05:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Created by Nmarshall25 ( talk). Self-nominated at 19:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
The article currently reads:
Microwear analysis is one of two primary methods (the other being use-wear analysis) for identifying the functions of artifact tools [...] Microwear differs from use-wear because of the scale at which the analysis happens; microwear analysis is the use of microscopy to evaluate and understand these polishes.
But I can't find support for the claim that microwear and use-wear are different methods in the cited sources that I can access (I can't access the SciAm one). As I understand it, "microwear" is simply use-wear analysis that uses a high-powered microscope. Shea [1] and many others [2] use the two terms interchangeably.
Similarly saying "one of two primary methods" is not supported by the sources I can access and the same Shea article notes that the main way archaeologists approach stone tool function is to infer it from form using ethnographic analogies or controlled experiments. Nowadays we can add to that residue analysis, ergonomic analysis, quantitative morphometrics, etc. – Joe ( talk) 15:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 ( talk · contribs) 21:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Picking this one up. Review to follow... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A solid article. Meets GA standard although I have some issues minor listed above.