Talk:History of Fairbanks, Alaska/GA1
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Initial comments
editAfter 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)
- Before Fairbanks -
- Appears to be compliant.
- Origins of Fairbanks -
...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Appears to be compliant.
- Boom, bust, boom & City of Fairbanks -
- They appear to be generally compliant.
- However, references 59 & 60 are broken web links.
- They appear to be generally compliant.
- Decline, Slowing the decline & Dredging era -
- These appear to be compliant.
...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
Summary
editGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A wide-ranging well-referenced article.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- 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:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- 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)