Talk:El Chal/GA1
Add topicLatest comment: 15 years ago by Simon Burchell in topic GA Review
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 17:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This looks like a very promising article. It is very well written. However, I think that the descriptions of the buildings and sites should split off into a new article, like "Structures of El Chal" or something like it. I'm going to put this article on hold until this is done. But I think once that is taken care of, this article would Pass.
- Thanks for looking at this. I'm not too keen on splitting the article - other articles (such as Takalik Abaj) contain all this in the same place. I can understand it for more important sites like Tikal, which was enormous and a major player in the Classic Period, but El Chal is a relatively minor site. The article size is currently 274KB, which is well under the 400KB limit recommended at Wikipedia:Article size#Technical issues. As I see it, this article is unlikely to grow in the forseeable future, unless some major discovery takes place at the site. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- I wasn't really concerned about the file size, more about the readability. Thank you for the link to Takalik Abaj. Seeing as how the format for that article got it an FA, I'll pass El Chal. Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the review! Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking at this. I'm not too keen on splitting the article - other articles (such as Takalik Abaj) contain all this in the same place. I can understand it for more important sites like Tikal, which was enormous and a major player in the Classic Period, but El Chal is a relatively minor site. The article size is currently 274KB, which is well under the 400KB limit recommended at Wikipedia:Article size#Technical issues. As I see it, this article is unlikely to grow in the forseeable future, unless some major discovery takes place at the site. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)