Talk:Snake River/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: I found 13 disambiguations. I could not determine whether Snake River Aquifer should disambiguate to Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer or Western Snake River Plain Aquifer; I could find no suitable target for Flathead; I fixed the rest.diff

Link rot: I repaired three and tagged one dead link.diff

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Very well written, I venture to suggest that this approaches FAC class. I did make a few minor copy-edits.diff

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   ref #89 [1] requires a login - that needs to be stated in the reference

   ref #86 [2] and ref #90 [3] are tagged as expring news links by WP:CHECKLINKS.

   Dead link fixe.  Done

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This article thoroughly covers the subject without going into unecessary detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images tagged and captioned

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Excellent, I ma very happy to passs this as a good article. Well done!