Talk:Columbia River/GA2

I've taken another look at Ruhrfisch's comments from his/her GA review, and believe all the most significant concerns have been met. Not every single concern, but the most important ones. I'm going to re-nominate, and leave a note to Ruhrfisch requesting that he/she revisit the review if time allows. Any thoughts? (I know there are still many improvements in progress, but I don't think any of them will hold this back from GA. I'm convinced by recent comments that FA may be a little further off.) -Pete (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's definitely GA material. Excellent work, Pete (and others)!Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will review it in the next day or so. My initial impression is also that it is quite good, but I need to carefully read and check the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read all of the article and the talk page again and am passing it with congratulations. It is obvious much work has been done since the first GA nomination and I believe it is close to FA status. I agree that Wikipedia needs better articles on larger rivers and see this as a potential model FA. Here then are some ideas and suggestions for further improvement, as well as a few typos / things that need to be fixed.

Geology section - something is missing in this sentence (at least a verb) A mountain on the north side of the Columbia River Gorge, likely a result of the Cascadia earthquake in 1700, in an event known as the Bonneville Slide. The slide is referred to later in the Indigenous peoples section.
The Navigation section opens with the Columbia Bar, then repeats much of this information in the Opening the passage to Lewiston subsection. While I am fine with mentioning the bar twice, the current wording seems overly repetitive.
Deeper shipping channel section - the last verb in this sentence does not seem to match the previous two verbs (parallel construction): The federal government is paying 65 percent, Oregon and Washington are paying $27 million each, and six local ports make payments as well.[42][45]
The footnote for the textbox quote from "Timothy Egan, in The Good Rain" is essentially hidden on my computer (IE) - just the very top shows - I can not tell what number it is.
I noted with interest the discussion of tributaries on the talk page. For FA, I think this section needs to be expanded. I think a discussion of the major tribs and a sentence or two on the smaller major tribs and a paragraph on each of the major tribs would be useful. I would also add the size of their drainage basins to the table.
I finally note that the footnotes are not consistently formatted. Internet refs should have title, publisher, author (if known), and date accessed. However, since Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured says "consistently formatted inline citations" are only required for FA, I will just make this a strong suggestion.

Congratulations and well done! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]