# Talk:Ocute

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)
Giving this article a review for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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)
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)
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)
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): 

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

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)
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)