Talk:Amnya complex/GA1

GA Review

Passed. sawyer * he/they * talk 18:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: Sawyer-mcdonell (talk · contribs) 03:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments - looks like a super interesting topic; I've been enjoying following your progress on it. Excited to dive into it! sawyer * he/they * talk 03:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sawyer-mcdonell: Made changes as requested. :3 Generalissima (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima looks great! Happy to pass this :3 sawyer * he/they * talk 18:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Perhaps explain what the "incised" and "comb stamp" ornamental traditions are, since they don't have articles Resolved
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Not violations of MOS at all, but I think the archaeology, history, and background sections could probably be merged, perhaps into one 'history' section with subsections? Let me know what you think.
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).	Can't access or read some of the sources, but I did spot-checks with the accessible sources and it looks good to me! (Note for anyone else reading this: I asked off-wiki & the Russian sources were translated by some Russophone friends)
	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.	The background could be a bit more in-depth I think; pp. 1384-1385 of the Piezonka et al. source has some interesting information about Siberian ancient fortifications that could be good to include. Resolved
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Nothing too technical or overly-detailed, which is easy to accidentally run into with archaeological topics :)
	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.	Awesome that you found all those CC pictures, really got lucky :)
	7. Overall assessment.	Awesome work. Very interesting read !!!

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.