Talk:Snake River/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: I found 13 disambiguations. I could not determine whether Snake River Aquifer should disambiguate to Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer or Western Snake River Plain Aquifer; I could find no suitable target for Flathead; I fixed the rest.diff
Link rot: I repaired three and tagged one dead link.diff
Checking against GA criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
ref #89 [1] requires a login - that needs to be stated in the reference- ref #86 [2] and ref #90 [3] are tagged as expring news links by WP:CHECKLINKS.
- Dead link fixe.
Done
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- This article thoroughly covers the subject without going into unecessary detail.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- All images tagged and captioned
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Excellent, I ma very happy to passs this as a good article. Well done!