Talk:Snake River/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: I found 13 disambiguations. I could not determine whether Snake River Aquifer should disambiguate to Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer or Western Snake River Plain Aquifer; I could find no suitable target for Flathead; I fixed the rest.diff

Link rot: I repaired three and tagged one dead link.diff

Checking against GA criteria

edit
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    Very well written, I venture to suggest that this approaches FAC class. I did make a few minor copy-edits.diff
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    ref #89 [1] requires a login - that needs to be stated in the reference
    ref #86 [2] and ref #90 [3] are tagged as expring news links by WP:CHECKLINKS.
    Dead link fixe.   Done
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    This article thoroughly covers the subject without going into unecessary detail.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    All images tagged and captioned
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Excellent, I ma very happy to passs this as a good article. Well done!