Contents

Talk:Ocute

Ocute 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. Review: March 2, 2017. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Indigenous peoples of North America This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles Georgia (U.S. state) Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofGeorgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state) articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Crooked Creek (Georgia), Ed Defore Sports Complex, Audery Mill Creek, More (Georgia)... More (U.S.)... Assess : Rate articles from Unassessed Georgia (U.S. state) articles and Unknown-importance Georgia (U.S. state) articles. Citing sources : Unreferenced Georgia (U.S. state) articles Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category. Geographical coordinates : more Georgia (U.S. state) articles missing geocoordinate data Infobox : Georgia (U.S. state) articles without infoboxes Map : Wikipedia requested maps in Georgia (U.S. state) Photo : Wikipedia requested photographs in Georgia (U.S. state) Stubs : Work on stubs in articles in Georgia (U.S. state) stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) radio station stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) road stubs and Georgia (U.S. state) geography stubs. Other : *Deletion sorting: Please see the collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Georgia (U.S. state) - compiled by WikiProject Deletion sorting Help out with articles placed in Category:Georgia (U.S. state) articles needing attention Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Tag the talk pages of Georgia (U.S. state)-related articles with the {{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)}} banner. Get Georgia (U.S. state) to a featured article quality standard

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 05:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giving this article a review for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Well-written. Shearonink (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Lead section is good, no puffery, complies with WP:MOS - good to go. Shearonink (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool, everything looks good. Shearonink (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Lays out the facts of this chiefdom's/tribe's rise and fall dispassionately. Shearonink (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Stable, no edit wars. Shearonink (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All the permissions are fine. Shearonink (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am doing a few more proofing-readhthroughs of the article to see if I missed anything, but so far so good. I can see some minor points of possible improvement but they are a matter of personal preference rather than being part of WP:GA criteria. Shearonink (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   It's a GA!

   Going forward I do think that some images of the pottery types (Vining Stamped ware->Complicated stamped pottery->complex coiled pottery) and images of some of the major Ocute mound sites would increase the human interest and break up the body of the text somewhat. I understand that these images might not be available on Commons but it is an area of possible future improvement. Shearonink (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]