Talk:Minneopa State Park/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Swpb (talk · contribs) 20:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Some minor grammar quibbles where the grammar isn't necessarily wrong, but could be clearer, particularly w/rt commas. I will do a copyedit for these.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Plagiarism check turned nothing up.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Nice balance.

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Very nice selection of images.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Nice work!