Talk:Edmonton/GA2

GA Review

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting the review i have been waiting awhile i look forward to you comments and other stuff you may half to say. Cheers Kyle1278 18:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

This a comprehensive, wide-ranging, well-illustrated, article. It should get through WP:WIAGA without too much difficulty this time round. I've have a look at a fair 'sample' of the illustrations and the copyrights appear to be OK. I've still need to check in-line citations and references; and there are a few (but not many) paragraphs without citations, but this might not be too serious - we will see when I get to them.Pyrotec (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History - "problems" with references:

War years - citation needed for merger with Strathcona, Alberta.

Done

Ref 15 -page load error.

Done

Ref 18 - broken link.

Done

Ref 20 - Its not clear what the map in the ref is showing or verifying.

Done It was to show the path of the tornado relative to Edmonton but i have changed the link.

Geography & location

What was ref 45 (Famous 5) and ref 46 (common tree species), now ref 46 & 47, are both the same = Famous 5. The second version needs changing.

Done

Infrastructure

Ref 90 refers to wikipedia - wikipedia is not a valid reference for wikipedia, so it has to go, but ref 89 is OK.

Done

Ref 94 & 95 are identical, so one ref will serve both in-line citations.

Done

City Life

Refs 114 & 115 are broken.

115 worked for me try it again and if it dose not work ill change it other wise i fixed 114.

Currently it is Refs 112 & 113 that are broken.Pyrotec (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Done

Ref 116 is "wrong".

Done

At the end of Culture', a ref is needed for - "Edmonton was named cultural capital of Canada in 2007".

Done

Retail

An update is needed for statement - "In 2008, Windermere a power centre is expected to be built".

Done

Pyrotec (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive, wide-ranging, well illustrated article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the article, I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much and i plan to keep the article up to GA. Cheers Kyle1278 17:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should not have passed quite so easily in that state, as there were serious organizational issues that needed to be fixed. But I made a few edits and I think it's up to par now. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it up. Cheers Kyle1278 15:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]