Talk:Luttra Woman/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Joe Roe (talk · contribs) 07:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
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:
A few references (e.g. Sjögren et al. 2017, Tjäder 2022) are repeated many times with just different page numbers. You might consider one of the options described in WP:IBID to reduce the redundancy.

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
C. It contains no original research:
Nothing major, but there are a few places that stray a bit too far into OR for my tastes:
Footnote a states During the radiocarbon dating process, samples used for the measurement are destroyed,[14] which is why some of her discovered bones no longer remain. Only the first part is referenced and, as that source says, standard radiocarbon dating consumes only a tiny. It might be possible that radiocarbon dating in 1969 destroyed a whole bone, but this does not appear to be directly supported by a source. The closest the cited source comes is It is unclear which bones were used, but the ribs mentioned by Sahlström are now missing so this is a possibility. – this could also be interpreted as that ribs were not returned by the radiocarbon lab, but I don't think we can say either way without synthesising.
Footnote b says the passage makes it clear that it was Ahlström who proposed the theory; I don't see how it does, and that runs counter to the usual norms of scientific publishing (where all the authors take collective responsibility for the whole paper).
Also, are there actually sources that call these remains a "bog body" (Swedish: mosslik)? Because usually that implies mummified soft tissue.
Addressed below. – Joe (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig's copyvio report returns zero matches.[1]
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):
Effective use of footnotes for parenthetical material.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If we can resolve the issue of possible OR mentioned under 2c, an easy pass. – Joe (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good now. – Joe (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe Many thanks for review. I've removed the footnotes, as per your points. As for the bog body mention, the English-language source by Sjögren et al. (2017) says (page 104-105): Thus, the presence of pyrite and the absence of bioerosion suggests that the body of Hallonflickan has been kept in a stable, reducing and anoxic environment since relatively shortly after her death and until her discovery. It furthermore suggests that the skeleton was located below the water level and was not affected by water level fluctuations to any great extent. [...] Decalcification is typical of European bog body finds and rapid decalcification has been observed after experimental burial of bone samples. Decalcification was then connected to the presence of sphagnum moss (Turner-Walker/Peacock 2008). Thus, the lack of sphagnum moss may explain the absence of extensive demineralisation in the case of Hallonflickan. I think the quoted passages show that the authors consider Hallonflickan/Luttra Woman as one of the "European bog body finds". Please let me know if you disagree.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just found this source, which says: Such finds are generally described under the overarching term ‘bog bodies’. On closer inspection, however, different categories can be distinguished based on levels of preservation (e.g. Nielsen et al. Reference Nielsen, Christensen and Frei2020: 2) (Figure 1). In this article, the term ‘bog mummy’ is used for human remains with preserved soft tissue and/or hair, while ‘bog skeleton’ refers to skeletal remains which can reasonably be assumed to have been deposited as a complete body [...] The number of known bog bodies in Europe, including bog mummies and bog skeletons, is estimated to be approximately 2000 (e.g. Gill-Robinson Reference Gill-Robinson and Mathieu2002: 111; Nielsen et al. Reference Nielsen, Christensen and Frei2020: 2). So the skeletonised remains found in bogs are apparently a type of bod bodies. BorgQueen (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I wasn't sure. Thank you for addressing the other points, I think this is good to go. – Joe (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]