Talk:Kamaʻehuakanaloa Seamount/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. It is an impressive article, and it is obvious a great deal of work has gone into it. Overall it seems very complete. I will go through it, looking for MoS and other issues and will copy edit any little problems. Hope that is OK with you, and if not, let me know. I do not anticipate any problems with this article. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have copy edited the article and tried to clean up the Overlinking. I suggest that you make sure that any terms, places etc. be wikilinked only once, or at the most twice. If you are considering going for FA, I strongly suggest that you read Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and also peruse the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates so that you get an idea of the types of objections editors bring up in FAC. The criteria for GA are much lower. You will need to make sure the lead is a complete reflection of the article. FAC can be a very stressful procedure. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows GA criteria for MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Covers all the major aspects of topic b (focused): Remains focused on the article topic
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: Is neutral in view point.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

A very comprehensive and well written, well referenced article. Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 20:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]