Jump to content

Talk:1976 Big Thompson River flood

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 15:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Tails Wx (talk). Self-nominated at 03:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/1976 Big Thompson River flood; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • The article was moved to main space 1-20-24 and so qualifies for DYK. The QPQ is done and the the article is sourced with the proper inline citations. I find ALT0 moderately interesting and cited in the article. Earwig does not alert to violations and a spot check shows that CLOP is not an issue. Not a DYK issue, but some areas suffer from WP:OVERCITE also consider the citations in the lead may not be needed per WP:LEADCITE (the material is already cited in the body - I checked). The image is not offered here but the infobox image is free. Bruxton (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1976 Big Thompson River flood/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Tails Wx (talk · contribs) 18:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: OhHaiMark (talk · contribs) 13:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

So far, this fulfills all the criteria.
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I'm passing the article. All of the sources are reliable, with even the "In popular culture" section being sourced. There are no grammar mistakes, the article's image is free-use, the article is stable, all the citations support each sentence, and most importantly, it's broad and neutral in its coverage. Have a good day. OhHaiMark (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.