Talk:Great Lakes/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HeyJude70 (talk · contribs) 15:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Very well written. It has taken time and effort for this article to reach level of completion.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Some paragraphs are without citations.
	2b. 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).	On review, some references are not of satisfactory reliability. As quoted below, "There are 6 citation needed tags in the article.".
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article focuses entirely on the topic at hand.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	(no edit wars recorded)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are verifiable by status.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The third image viewable on the page states: "Location in North America". Unless it is the white section (which is unstated), the area is directly undisplayed. Can this be corrected? This has been corrected, no longer an issue. Thanks to Philroc
	7. Overall assessment.	Currently awaiting any input from other Wikipedia users. I am new to this process, however I understand the criteria. I would appreciate any input from other users, otherwise my original opinion will stand. Thank you ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC). Further discussion found that the article did not satisfy the criteria for a Good Article. The biggest problem with the article is the lack of citations, as shown by the 6 'citation needed' tags throughout the article. If the citations are placed where necessary this article will be much more likely to satisfy the Good Article criteria. ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Clarification

HeyJude70 -- can you clarify what you are looking for? The Great Lakes are enclosed in the redish box in the picture. Dolotta (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dolotta: I fixed the picture - before, it was just a map of North America without the box. Philroc^{My contribs} 23:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments

I have not looked at all the sources but 7 and 8 do not seem like very good sources. I also think a good copy-edit would help, perhaps from the guild of copyeditors. Some sections seem choppy. Other issues that need to be looked at include coverage balance and due weight. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The referencing needs work. There are 6 citation needed tags in the article. All non-obvious facts need references. The subsections "Primary connecting waterways," "Flora," "Shipping," and "Drinking waters" are unreferenced and there are several paragraphs throughout without any references. I also agree with the comments from @Alanscottwalker:. I do not think this article currently meets the Good Article criteria. Knope7 (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I have re-reviewed this, and there were obviously some issues I missed with the page. I have updated the review to reflect this, as well as including the corrections made. At this time, I believe that the page may not be eligible to pass the Good Page criteria. ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)