Jump to content

Talk:History of Flagstaff, Arizona/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: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 15:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review

[edit]

Hello, Kingsif. I'll do this review. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basic GA criteria

[edit]
  1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
  2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
  3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
  4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
  5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
  6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
  7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
  8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
  9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
  10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
  11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  12. No original research.
  13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
  14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
  15. Neutral.
  16. Stable.
  17. Illustrated, if possible.
  18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

Summary

[edit]

Hello again, Kingsif. This is an excellent historical article which covers a wide scope ranging from astronomy to sport through a variety of topics such as commerce, geography, politics and transport. I was especially pleased by the attention paid to the prehistory of the region.

As you can see from the list above, all the boxes are ticked. I just made a few small tweaks while I was reading it, like a rogue comma and a couple of instances where I think there is a better word. I'm not going to beat about the bush with this one because it is demonstrably a good article and it passes this review with ease. I would say, in fact, that you've perhaps come to the wrong place because this really should go to FAC. I see, though, that you're still doing some fine tuning so perhaps as well to ensure GA first.

I'll keep the article on my watchlist and, if you do decide to take it to FAC sometime, I'll join the review there. A very interesting article and I can certainly say I've learned some things worth knowing. Well done. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]