Jump to content

Talk:McConnell Island

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:McConnell Island/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 00:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Lead could use a sentence or two about what's in the history section to conform to MOS:LEAD. No copyvio, good prose and structure.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Reference section is fine. However, I think there needs to be a second cite to the Thomas Gordon Thompson 1888—1961, with a different page number to source the naming of the R/V; and perhaps I missed it, but I could find no reference to the USNS vessel. Also, neither in that source nor in the "Thompson Family Papers" could I find the actual year the island was purchased. Again, did I miss it?
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    As broad as an article like this can be.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Edit history revealed no edit wars.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Good map in infobox. Failed to find any free images on commons.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: - on hold while nominating editor is on vacation pass after corrections made.
    Fix the leads and the cites and you're good to go.
Onel5969 - thanks much! I've fixed the lede, addition one reference, and changed some verbiage to make it consistent with the existing references. I believe that's everything you outlined, but let me know if I missed something. LavaBaron (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]