Talk:Appalachian Trail/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Triona (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Article is appropriately written in prose, and appears to be well written Triona (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further Reading section didn't confirm to WP:FURTHER, mostly complete in reformatting, but some prose was lost in the translation. Triona (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Some consider this" was a weasel word and was removed along with adding a missing citation Triona (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
There are three statements in the article that appear to be validly tagged as needing citations. These are minor but important statements that should be easy to find sources for. Ultimately, I think these may put the nomination on hold, but not willing to fail the nomination at the present time without allowing them to be corrected. Generally, the article seems at first glance to be well cited, a thorough examination will be forthcoming. Triona (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Down to one citation needed tag in Appalachian_Trail#Virginia. I'd like to see this fixed, but I'm inclined to pass anyway because the climatological data for the region I was able to find seems to support it, just couldn't find a reference that supports the statement in a straightforward manner. Triona (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded it to remove a weasel word and to make it verifiable against citations. Triona (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of references that can no longer be checked because they are now dead links. See thelink checker report. If they can be replaced with working links, or if the article no longer relies on them, might be a good idea to remove them.Triona (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Broad coverage, follows summary style where appropriate, focuses on details where appropriate.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Generally NPOV and I don't see any obvious evidence of bias, but there are a few statements I'd like to see reworded so they don't appear weasely. Triona (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to hold the nomination over this, still want to see phrasing like "more scenic" cut out or attributed specifically. Triona (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Currently appears to be fairly stable. Article is still undergoing apparently noncontroversial improvements, and no evidence of edit warring is to be seen. Triona (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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):
As of 23:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC) all images are appropriately tagged. There is one image tagged as fair use (of the official AT logo) that appears to be used appropriately with respect to it's rationale, and the rationale given appears to be a valid claim of fair use. Triona (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail: Hold pending completion of review and resolution of minor issues Triona (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minor problems fixed, appears to meet GA standards now. Triona (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]