Talk:River Weaver/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the delay. I have been reading through this article has well as doing other reviews. Quite often I do minor changes to an article whilst I review it, but in the case of this article I've done most none - a tribute to the quality of the article. Pyrotec (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An interesting, well-referenced and well-illustrated article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The lead is possibly a bit on the short side, but I'm regarding it as compliant.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

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:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated. Its a minor point that does not distract from the overall quality of the article, but I regard the schematic diagram, entitled "River Weaver" as slightly misleading. What it showes is the River Weaver up to its limit of navigation. The article mentions the Shropshire Union Canal which has no physical link to the Weaver other than it runns parallel and the two cross by means of an aqueduct. I have no strong preference, but either the title should be amended (probably the easiest option) or the diagram extended.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an interesting article. I have made two comments in respect of improvements, they can be found in the summary above. Aside from these, I have made little or no edits to the article: which I take to be a measure of its quality. Pyrotec (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]