Talk:Construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System/GA1

GA Review

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

First feedback: The lead is too short. Make it summarize this article. You might just be able to use the construction section from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System article as a base and work from there.

Referencing and images look fine so far. No obvious issues with the prose. Will give a full review once the lead is expanded. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Good job.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Thanks for fixing up the lead, looks great now.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Excellent referencing

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This really is better as a breakout article than as a humongous section of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Good

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   People have come here to help, but nothing is disputed. Pretty tranquil topic, really.

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):

   Great selection of images, in both variety and placement, although I did move one image.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good job. Your hard work to peel this out and into its own article is appropriately rewarded with promotion to GA status Jclemens (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)