Talk:Pike-Pawnee Village Site

Pike-Pawnee Village Site has been listed as one of the Geography and places 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: February 22, 2014. (Reviewed version).

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Nebraska Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Nebraska portal This article is supported by WikiProject Nebraska (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Pike-Pawnee Village Site appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 February 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a Kitkehahki Pawnee village in Nebraska is the site where Zebulon Pike convinced the Kitkehahki to remove a Spanish flag and display an American flag?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pike-Pawnee Village Site.

Wikipedia

Photos

Photos and/or photo uploads, of artifacts if the location is not disclosed, are needed.

NRHP photos seem not to be available on-line for this site.
New photos would be helpful.

List-defined references

I am currently in the research stage of what I think will be a major expansion of this article. I expect to put in lots of citations. To make this easier, I'd like to change the article over to use list-defined references (described at WP:LDR). Would the previous editors of the article have any objection to my doing so? I will of course make sure that the current citations appear correctly. Thanks. Ammodramus (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pike-Pawnee Village Site/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) 22:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article. My strategy is to give overall comments about the article, then go through it section by section, check all the references, and finally to check it against the Good Article criteria. I'll let the nominator know when I'm ready for their response. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 22:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall comments

This looks like quite a strong article. It only receives around 13 views per day but is perfectly notable. The nominator has performed many significant expansions and the edit history reveals not one revertion, so it's very stable. There are many references and quite a lot of detail, illustrated with images.

Section analysis

Description

There are some measurements which should be abbreviated: foot, meter, mile and kilometer (ft, m, mi, km).

Why abbreviated? I used the default form of the "Convert" template, which produces full names for the primary units and abbreviations for the converted form. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Unit_names_and_symbols, "In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times..."

The one exception I can see is in the "Description" section, where I did a manual conversion from a very approximate "about one-fourth mile" to a similarly approximate "about one-half kilometer". Per MOS:CONVERSIONS, "Converted quantity values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source quantity value". I thought that "0.4 km" would appear too precise, since the original quarter-mile measure was fairly imprecise. In this case, I followed the usage indicated by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Unit_symbols: "Units symbols are preceded by figures, not by spelled-out numbers: for example, 5 km, not five km." Ammodramus (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No other issues

References

What is with the listing of references down at the bottom and then named above, rather than having the references inline and simply having {{reflist}} at the bottom? This can be left but I was wondering why the unusual way of doing it, and also that they would be better in two columns, because the list is quite long.

—I've restored the separate "Notes" and "References" section, which you combined in a single "References" section. The original sectioning was consistent with the usage at WP:CITESHORT and Help:Shortened footnotes, among other places.

—I like to use list-defined references, described at WP:LDR and in more detail at Help:List-defined references. I find that they make it easier to read the text in the edit window, which reduces the incidence of embarrassing grammatical errors. They also allow me to delete or move a passage without having to copy citation material to another place in the article.

—Per your suggestion, I've converted the list of notes to two columns. Ammodramus (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 73 appears to be dead

Ref 73 removed. Ref 74 appears to cover most of the points that it was intended to support; I'm looking for a new citation to support the statement that the Republic County site was better preserved than the Pike site. Ammodramus (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found and inserted a citation for this statement (Platoff). Ammodramus (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Just need to fix my above suggestions then the article can be promoted. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 22:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this! I appreciate your taking the time to read carefully through a long article on an obscure subject. I've responded to your suggestions above; although I haven't implemented all of them, I hope that I've given good reasons for my not doing so. If you believe otherwise, please let me know. Ammodramus (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the new changes are OK and there's nothing else I can see to be done, so I'll promote the article now.

Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 15:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]