Talk:Columbia Station (Washington)/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Dishita Bhowmik (talk · contribs) 17:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The article is NPOV, has relevant and reliable sources, has relevant images and has inline citations. The text corresponds to the sources. However the lead section lacks inline citations. The inline citations also have some problem. When editing the article, the numbers are in order of 123...and so on. However, after you publish the page the First citation goes missing and citations begin from 2 i.e. 2345... so on. Someone with better knowledge of wiki markup should look after the matter. DishitaBhowmik 15:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain this citation issue more clearly? It looks like you're complaining about the infobox citation going missing, which shouldn't happen. A full review is also needed. SounderBruce 20:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

User:SounderBruce Yes, I'm talking about the missing citation. Its strange because even after removing and replacing the citations, the issue does not resolve. And what do you mean by a full review? I am not sure I understand you completely. DishitaBhowmik 12:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dishita Bhowmik: Please read Step 3 at WP:GAREVIEW. You must write out why this article meets/does not meet the GA criteria. I would highly recommend consulting with a review mentor since this is your first time reviewing. SounderBruce 17:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

lead sections are not cited. See WP:LEADCITE. They are a summary of information found in the rest of the prose. Infoboxes are generally the same - see WP:INFOBOXCITE - however, sometimes there are items that need citations that don't fit well into the body.

Citations in the infobox will always show up as the first citation. This is normal. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Lee Vilenski Thanks for the clarification. DishitaBhowmik 04:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Dishita Bhowmik - I think my recommendation would be to use the GA criteria and go through item by item and construct a review from that, making actionable comments where you can. Sounder Bruce is pretty experienced so if you don't have too many suggestions that's fine and feel free to ask me if you need any help. Just make sure to ask at my talk page so I get the notification. Thanks, ceranthor 23:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Review : Passed
Reasons :

• Is well written: the text is clear and understandable;
• spelling and grammar: check; and
• Verifiability: check;
• References: proper and in appropriate layout;
• Inline citations: reliable;
• Does not contain original research;
• No copyright violations or plagiarism;
• has a NPOV;
• has no ongoing edit war; and
• Is Illustrated properly. DishitaBhowmik 13:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Ceranthor: and @SounderBruce:.

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.