Talk:Trout Creek Mountains/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cptnono (talk · contribs) 11:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great article and looks to be a little bit of expansion and decent peer review away from being FAC material. Some suggestions to meet GA criteria:

Prose and MoS:

The lead should be expanded and broken into paragraphs. There is enough information in the article and sources to make this happen.
"riparian" may need more of an explanation in the article along with wikilinking it since it is used so often. "alus sloopes" could be useful but is not as prominent.
Consider the frequency of "The Trout Creek Mountains". It comes across as repetitive. This is especially true when two paragraphs in a row are started with the full name. Maybe "The mountains" or other variations would work.
The climate section could be improved with information on average temperatures.
Prose are not my strongest point as a reviewer. There are a couple words I might change and comas that might be substituted with the word "at". These might be personal preferences. Please seek a peer review for more scrutiny.

Factual accuracy (no action needed)

My initial concern was that Peakbagger may not be RS. It doesn't appear to be a major concern after looking into it more. IS this a common source in the topic area?
The tool shows a red reference but it links fine. (no action needed)

Breadth of coverage

Please address the length of the lead as mentioned above.

NPOV & stability (no action needed)

Pretty much N/A

Images

The image under flora should be on the right.
The image under Human uses should use the "upright" parameter.
The before and after pictures at the end are a great addition. It might be better as a single image. (no action needed)

Alttext would be appreciated but is not necessary. (no action needed)

Cptnono (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does it all look now? Regarding Peakbagger, it's a longtime site with tons of information about every mountain you can think of and no biases/opinions. So it's very often used on Wikipedia. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You just wrote a Good Article. Please take this to FA. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. I'll see when I have time for an FA attempt. Probably not soon, though. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]