Wikipedia:Peer review/Lady of Guardamar/archive1

Lady of Guardamar[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to know whether it can become assessed as a good or featured article. If not, what changes must be made?

Thanks, S. M. Sullivan (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As it stands this is a stub as it has one reference and is quite short. I rated it at stub class and added a translsation from Spanish template. Citing the Spanish Wikipedia is not allowed as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So here are some suggestions for improvement.

Article needs more references, as only one is cited and it is used only once currently. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Provide English units to go with the metric equivalents - {{convert}} is helpful here.
Article does not really have a lead or sections, but should. See WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself.
Image needs a caption - perhaps state that the original parts of the sculpture are darker in color and the restoration is lighter?
I don't understand this sentence As nothing from the site is more recent than 300 BC, and the site flourished between 430 and 350 BC, it seems likely that the Lady dates from 400 to 370 BC. How do you get a date between 400 and 370 from this (since the years 400 and 370 are only mentioned once as possible dates how were they arrived at)? Why not 430 to 300 BC?
This is so short and has no refs to check, so it is hard to know what else to talk about - try expanding it and adding refs.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]