Talk:Crypt of Civilization/GA1

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.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mertbiol (talk · contribs) 11:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This looks like an interesting article. I haven't undertaken a review before, but as I've now nominated two of my own articles for GA status, I think it's time to start paying back! I'll give each section a thorough copy edit and, once that's complete, I'll leave further comments here. Mertbiol (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I have undertaken a thorough copy edit. There were several long (40+ words) sentences, which I have rephrased and some repetition which I have stripped out. I have also added two new references and have run an archiving bot.

My main concern at the moment is the inline citations used, which in a few cases do not support the text. Can I ask the editors of this page to review all the references please, especially at points where I have placed the 'clarification needed' template.

At the moment I feel there is also a fair amount to do to address criterion 3a - 'covers the main aspects of the topic' and I feel that more content is needed on the 'Beginnings' section. I think this is perhaps also true for the 'Legacy' section to connect the Westinghouse Time Capsule back to the Crypt of Civilization.

I'll step back now to let the editors work on the article. Please let me know here when you are ready for me to continue my review. Mertbiol (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for initial review. I am addressing the issues now.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

All issues have been addressed. Ready now for additional follow-up review. FYI, I happened to have attended the 1964 World's Fair and saw the Westinghouse exhibit on their time capsule display (fourth picture). --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I created the Westinghouse Time Capsules article and turned it into a Good Article last year. I have 79% authorship into it.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

OK. I will look at this tomorrow. The article still has a very long way to go. In hindsight I probably should have quick-failed it. You will know from the amount of time that both you and I have spent on it today, that it was nowhere near GAN when you submitted it. Mertbiol (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This article was proposed for GA status after the nominator had worked on it for less than a day. It was not ready for assessment. When I looked at the article yesterday, my prime concerns were that there several statements which were not supported by the citations given and the nominator was asked to check all references thoroughly, however that concern remains. I now consider it unlikely that the nominator will be able to fix the article on their own. I will spend a couple of hours working on it today, but having made that major input, the independence of my review would be compromised. I therefore intend to assess the article as it currently stands (it easily fails GA status) and to let the nominator renominate again for someone else to assess.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Text is unclear in places: "He imagined a current events story", "The Bureau of Standards gave professional technical assistance for the artifacts"
   Words are repeated "story of the customs of people's manners, customs, and knowledge", overuse of the words "included" and "including", which often both occur in the same sentence.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Numerous statements are not supported by the citations given. It is impossible to verify the to the History Channel reference.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There is not enough information in the 'Beginnings' section as to how the project was conceived and designed. The parts on the 'Westinghouse Time Capsules' are too long. The text is disorganised.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wards

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Only one image

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article is C class at present. Mertbiol (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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.