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

• Whoselivestock is grazing and who does theranchland 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-seeWP:WIAGA for criteria (andhere for what they are not)

1. Is itreasonably well written?

   A. Prose:clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   Well written, clear.

   B. Complies withMoS forlead,layout,words to watch,fiction, andlist incorporation:

2. Is itfactually accurate andverifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Providesin-line citations fromreliable sources where necessary:

   C.No original research:

3. Is itbroad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow theneutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is itstable?

   Noedit wars, etc:

6. Does itcontainimages to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images havefair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, withsuitable captions:

7. 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]