Talk:Mesa Verde National Park/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 20:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 20:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

After first read-through, purely for typos etc, only one query: "specie" rather than "species" (twice). I'm perfectly prepared to be told I'm wrong, but it looks odd to me. Beginning close reading for substantive content now. More soonest, Tim riley talk 19:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If you click on the "Disambig links" link in the GA toolbox, on the right, you'll find it comes up with a couple of links that need attention. Tim riley talk 13:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Dabs are now fixed, and you were correct about specie, so that's fixed also. Thanks for taking this on, Tim! RO^(talk) 19:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Very few further comments.

• "artefacts" or "artifacts"? – we have both
• for my taste you overuse the word "significant"; it is a pity to waste it as a mere synomyn of "important" or "major", and I think it is always worth asking oneself before using it, "what did it signify?"
• there are a few phrases in quotation marks – such as in "bays, lagoons, and swamps" and is the "youngest rock layer present in the area.", which don't seem to me to benefit from being in quotes. I can't see that there would be the slightest suggestion of plagiarism if you took the quotes off these very everyday words and phrases. On the other hand, if you want them in quotes, I think you should attribute them in the text.
• "Teddy Roosevelt" seems a touch familiar, I thought, but an American might see it differently.

I cannot offer any informed opinion on the comprehensiveness and balance of the article, but it looks fine to this layman's eye, particularly as you come trailing clouds of glory from the FAC for Chetro Ketl. None of these minor points could be regarded as barring the article from promotion, and so:

I agree with these points, and I've adopted your suggestions: ([1]). Thanks for reviewing my work, Tim! RO^(talk) 16:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

A fine piece of work, and clearly worthy of promotion to GA. – Tim riley talk 14:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim! RO^(talk) 16:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)