Talk:North Acropolis, Tikal

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Simon Burchell in topic GA Review
Good articleNorth Acropolis, Tikal has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 15, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 18, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the North Acropolis (pictured) at the ancient Maya city of Tikal served as a royal necropolis and contains the tombs of a number of identified Maya rulers?

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:North Acropolis, Tikal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 14:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Will review this tomorrow.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Lead
  • aound -typo
  • "the tombs of Yax Nuun Ayiin I, Siyaj Chan K'awiil II, Wak Chan K'awiil and "Animal Skull"." dates of rule or burial in brackets after each would be useful here.
  • My feeling is that you need to elaborate more on the monuments to effectively summarize the article.
Late preclassic
  • Wikilink Late Preclassic .
Postclassic
  • Strange to begin section with "However".
Structures
  • No estimated dates for construction date of 27-31?
  • I've dropped in some dates; in some cases this is pretty vague since not all of these structures have been excavated. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Burial 48
  • The king wwas -typo
plaster of paris

Paris is capitalized in the dictionary for plaster of Paris I believe.

Looks in good shape overall, most interesting, especially the red painted skull.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for the review - I've fixed the simple stuff and will come back and do the rest tomorrow. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
OK, I think I've dealt with everything - if not, please let me know. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. 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:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

Good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's great - many thanks! All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply