Talk:Itcha Range/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This does look like a worthy GA article. I'll finish this review within a day or two at the most. Thanks ☯ Jaguar ☯ 21:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

"It is located 40 km (25 mi)" - should miles (imperial) usually be in front of kilometres (metric)? I've never seen this before. Seeing as that this is used in the whole article, I wouldn't say that this would affect the GAN

No, countries that use metric instead of imperial measurements usually have kilometres in front of miles in their articles, at least in geographical/geological ones anyway. Volcanoguy 19:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand as this is an article about a range, not a specific location ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slight WP:OVERLINKING in the Flora and fauna section

Removed. Volcanoguy 19:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that table necessary in the Parasitic cones section? Its length disrupts the flow of the prose - can it be collapsed or cut back if it is essential to the article?

I tried collapsing it but didn't work out too well. How exactly does it disrupt the flow of the prose? Volcanoguy 19:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I don't think it would derail a GAN so if you prefer we could leave it in ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Occupation section only mention the indigenous people or can it expand more on the more contemporary colonisation?

Indigenous people are the primary group in this part of British Columbia. Volcanoguy 19:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"One particular ranch, the Home Ranch, used the Blackwater Trail" - what is this? A road? Natural causeway?

I have linked "Blackwater Trail" to the Alexander MacKenzie Heritage Trail article. Volcanoguy 19:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

No dead links
Citations are in the correct places so this meets the criteria

On hold

Sorry this took so long. I like the way this article is written; it is broad, comprehensive and easy to read/understand. This is among the most well written articles I have reviewed but as with 90% of my reviews, I put them on hold once the more technical issues are out of the way (in order to perfect the article). It is also a rule in the GA cup which I am currently participating in that straight up passes are not allowed, but under the circumstances I would have put this on hold anyway. Please let me know when everything is addressed, this should have little problems passing ☯ Jaguar ☯ 14:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

Thanks for clarifying them. As I mentioned above the table shouldn't affect a GAN but I originally thought it left a space too long. Anyway, this article is well written, broad and well referenced. Pure GA material ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]