Talk:La Blanca, Peten/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 15:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning the review - will add as I go along. Any copy editing I do you are free to revert.

lede
smooth out wording e.g. "been dated" is repeated a lot. The prose is a little clunky.

I've reworded various bits of the intro, hopefully it reads a bit smoother now. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Location
"La Blanca is accessed by a dirt road leading 17 kilometres (11 mi) to the Flores to Melchor de Mencos highway, which it joins at La Pólvora." - I couldn't quite make sense of this.

I've rephrased it - it should be a bit clearer now. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

repetition of "the Archeological site" two sentences in a row.

I've cut the 2nd instance of "archaeological". Simon Burchell (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The agricultural land closest to the ruins is largely dedicated to livestock grazing, particularly cattle and horses." - who lives there now?

No-one that I could see - just a vast expanse of ranchland, that's not specifically mentioned in the sources though (but the location section does say "The site occupies a small pocket of forest amongst an extensive region of cleared agricultural land"). I've dropped in a photo of the area to give an idea. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply

Whose livestock is grazing and who does the ranchland belong to?

No idea, the sources certainly don't day - I'll have a quick google to see if any of the local ranches has an internet presence, but I doubt it, the area is pretty remote. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(will continue) MathewTownsend (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything, my map of Guatemala has the "Sal Si Puedes" ranch marked about 4km away, but the finca doesn't have any website I could find. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
Well written, clear.

B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources:

B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed:

B. Remains focused:
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Very nice article!

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mathew! All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]