Talk:Wallkill Valley Rail Trail/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: intelati^talk 01:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

One of the best sourced and detailed articles I have read

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Excellently sourced, and written. But the first paragraph of the lead is alittle confusing. Is the extention apart of the trail it self, or am I misreading that.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
No problems, Most sentences have references.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Nice background of the railroad's history :)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No problems
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
None that I see
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):
Nice variety of pictures, all free, and they all add nicely to the article
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Not now, but after the rewrite of the lead, the article is ready.

I'll rework the lead paragraph immediately.
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Truth be told, the lead was the last thing I worked on. I'm going to leave the references, though, because some claims (such as the bridge being the "most awesome part" of the trail) may be contentious.
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]