The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was pleasantly surprised to find that the article appears free of typos or improper grammar. With this factoring in together with its layout and presentation, the article complies with the MOS policies. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article's bibliography contains a wealth of reputable sources, to which it has made frequent inline citations throughout. All information in the article is substantially accounted for, and there is no sign of original research. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
(b) 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 article seems very well-versed in the topic it covers. There's a great deal of information on Hayrick Butte in here, none of which seems trivial. Actually, as far as the reading process goes, along with being encyclopedic it was one of the most enjoyable reads I've had while conducting a GAN review. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
According to the revision history, it looks as though the article has not been subjected to any disruptive behaviour such as edit warring, since its creation. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Both images used in this article, at the present date, are freely licensed. With one being a photo showing scenery pertaining to Hayrick Butte, and the other being a map specifying its location in Oregon, both images serve relevant illustrative purposes regarding the subject. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. I have a few things to take care of, in and not in Wikipedia, but I should at least get some progress made on this within the next several hours. Thanks for reminding me. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through the article and judging it against the criteria as outlined above, I am confident that it qualifies as a GA. Congratulations, and I apologize for there having been a bit of a wait. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.