Talk:Mississippi–Alabama barrier islands/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JPxG (talk · contribs) 00:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No spelling or grammar errors I could find. Gives a clear and accurate summary of what's known; avoids veering off into editorialization or florid prose, while varying sentence structure enough to avoid becoming tedious.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The sections are all arranged in a way that makes sense to me, and complies with MoS. Many have argued that this critically-claimed article doesn't have any weasel words or peacock terms. The closest thing to a list is the well-written prose section about the individual islands, of which there are five. It's good.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Every claim in the article is cited.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The major sources used in the article are USGS materials, peer-reviewed publications and the Biloxi Sun Herald, all of which seem quite reliable on the subject to me.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There is nothing goofy that I see here; the statements in the article are pretty much what the sources say.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's tool gives me nothing, when searching the online sources as well as when searching the broader Internet. There's no nonfree images.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Looks like a pretty complete treatment of the overall topic; the islands themselves, their composition features, the geophysical circumstances of their formation, the history of mankind's interaction with them, and summaries of each individual island (all of which have their own articles).
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I can't think of anything here that doesn't clearly belong in the article, and I can't think of anything not here that clearly belongs.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	There does not seem to be any agenda whatsoever in this article; it is a completely objective recounting of geophysical facts.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There has been no back-and-forth in the whole history of the article; in fact, it has seven revisions and the most recent of them was from October 2020.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is my first GA review, so I will be asking someone else to go through and double-check what I've written here. It's a good article, though. I like islands, and I like these islands! Thanks for writing it.

Hey, thanks for the review, JPxG! I don't want this to get forgotten, so I'm just bumping this a little. Looking forward to hearing any concluding thoughts! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Bumping again. Anything else you'd like to see before closing the review? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first GA review, so I will be asking someone else to go through and double-check what I've written here.

I'll sign off on this. Review looks well-conducted to me. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 01:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I'll close the review! jp×g 01:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]