Talk:Hayrick Butte/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 02:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

Well-written:

I was pleasantly surprised to find that the article appears free of typos or improper grammar. With this factoring in together with its layout and presentation, the article complies with the MOS policies. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article's bibliography contains a wealth of reputable sources, to which it has made frequent inline citations throughout. All information in the article is substantially accounted for, and there is no sign of original research. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article seems very well-versed in the topic it covers. There's a great deal of information on Hayrick Butte in here, none of which seems trivial. Actually, as far as the reading process goes, along with being encyclopedic it was one of the most enjoyable reads I've had while conducting a GAN review. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article's tone is free of bias of any nature. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

According to the revision history, it looks as though the article has not been subjected to any disruptive behaviour such as edit warring, since its creation. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Both images used in this article, at the present date, are freely licensed. With one being a photo showing scenery pertaining to Hayrick Butte, and the other being a map specifying its location in Oregon, both images serve relevant illustrative purposes regarding the subject. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

@Wilhelmina Will: Any update on this? ceranthor 15:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. I have a few things to take care of, in and not in Wikipedia, but I should at least get some progress made on this within the next several hours. Thanks for reminding me. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through the article and judging it against the criteria as outlined above, I am confident that it qualifies as a GA. Congratulations, and I apologize for there having been a bit of a wait. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2019 (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.