Jump to content

Talk:History of Fairbanks, Alaska/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: Pyrotec (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

After a fairly quick read through (this is a long article!) this article appears to be at or about GA-level; it's comprehensive and well-referenced. I'm now doing to do a detailed review section by section but leaving the WP:Lead until last. This might take a day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before Fairbanks -
  • Appears to be compliant.
  • Origins of Fairbanks -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Appears to be compliant.
  • Boom, bust, boom & City of Fairbanks -
  • They appear to be generally compliant.
    • However, references 59 & 60 are broken web links.
  • Decline, Slowing the decline & Dredging era -
  • These appear to be compliant.

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Statehood -
  • Web references 154, 157, 159, 161 & 163 appear to be broken links.
  • The Great Flood -
  • Web references 175 & 176 appear to be broken links.
  • Post-boom -
  • Web references 203, 205, 206, 214 & 215 appear to be broken links.
  • Modern Fairbanks -
  • Web references 217 & 219 appear to be broken links.

Pyrotec (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


A wide-ranging well-referenced article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced, but many of the web links are broken.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  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:
    This is quite a comprehensive article in terms of text, but for this length of article images are under-represented.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

The earlier problems with some web references being broken have been repaired by the nominator. I'm now awarding GA-status. Congratulations on the qulity of the article. Pyrotec (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]