Talk:Wyangala/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JSwho (talk · contribs) 06:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get this review done in the next few days. This is a long article! No immediate failures.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Prose, spelling and grammar are good.
No obvious copyright violations for text or images. I have checked several references that have online links and all are good.
Good use of images throughout.
Layout/structure of the article is good.
I have checked most of the linked references now - all are appropriately used.
Structure/layout of the article is fine.

Well done, I really enjoyed reviewing this article. I'm going to pass it. JSwho (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the 1961-71 dam upgrade section - you should remove "bringing with them their families, cultural traditions and probably most impactful, their food".

   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the post office section, there is no need to mention "drawing in residents on a daily basis to share news and gossip".

   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you write "impressive width at its base" use another word other than impressive.

   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will give more feed back soon and continue with the review. JSwho (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good, extensive list of references supporting your article. However, there are few issues with some of the references:

You need to add page numbers to the book/journal references where they are available.

   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For references 86, 88-96, you need to add more specific dates and/or retrieved dates JSwho (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]