Jump to content

Talk:Missoula, Montana/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Cadiomals (talk · contribs) 20:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC) So far I have read through the article and it is well written, organized and broad in its coverage. I will be checking out the citations and references for factual accuracy and verifiability, but so far this article has a good chance of getting GA. Cadiomals (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my full review:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


This is an organized, well-written, well-sourced article

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Good prose that meets most/almost all WP guidelines
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    adequately sourced where necessary
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    no original research is apparent as all necessary statements are cited
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Goes into detail without getting off topic
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    No NPOV is apparent
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Some very nice pictures, just the right amount
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    The strong points are that it is informative and organized. Prose and citations are adequate but could still be improved, but overall this meets the good article criteria.