Talk:Dilek Peninsula-Büyük Menderes Delta National Park/GA2
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Will211 (talk · contribs) 04:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment
[edit]This review is probably going to be quick, as all of the problems I had in the first GA Review have been fixed. I may however, find other issues, which I will post below.
It is well written
[edit]the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct 
and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
I fixed some grammar errors that I found, but everything looks good now.
Verifiable with no original research
[edit]it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline 
all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
it contains no original research
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism
This is the only area in which I can find any problems. Using checklinks, I found two sources that have issues. For reference 17, the website cannot be reached, and reference 30 comes up with a 404 error. Any information that is in the article and relies on these two sources would have to be referenced with different websites.
Neutral
[edit]it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each
Stable
[edit]it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate
[edit]images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
Nice job with fixing the descriptions, everything looks good now!
Overall
[edit]The sources problem is the only thing that needs to be fixed. When these issues are fixed, the article can be passed Will211 (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, I see that the references have been fixed. With the gallery, I think the topographic model would be good to put in the article, but that's your decision. Since the problems have been fixed, this article can pass. Will211 (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)