I am doing the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project.
This is a nice, tight little article but I'm concerned about a couple of things:
- There is information in the Lead that is not in the body of the article. Per WP:LEAD the lead is to be a summary of the information in the article. As such any information in the lead should be expanded on in the article. What is conspicuously missing from the article is the bone's discovery and the society in which the bone was used. This should be expanded upon the information in the lead. There is nothing in the article on these two subjects, which makes it lacking from a comprehensive standpoint.
- The primary subsection is "Mathematical calculations". It has one inline citation at the end of the section. The rest of the article is fairly well referenced except this section, I'd like to see more inline citations in this section, since it is the crux of the article. Especially when speculations such as, "The bone may therefore have been used as a counting tool for simple mathematical procedures" are brought up.