Talk:Coquitlam/GA2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Starting GA review.Pyrotec (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Initial review[edit]

You have basically got a Good Article here, I gone through it in some detail and made a few very minor edits. You've taken on board the comments made at the last GA review, so I should be able to award this article GA-status in due course.

I've found three minor problems, which need to be resolved:

  • Reference 9 appear to be unopenable.
  • Reference 18 appears to have a broken link.
  • In Transportation a statement is made that "Abbotsford International Airport, located to the east, is the sixth busiest airport in Canada". Ref 32, at the end of the paragraph, provides confirmation that the three airports exit, but it does not provide confirmation that Abbotsford is the sixth busiest. So that statement is not verifiable, at present, under WP:Verify.

Much of the article from Infrastructure onwards is written in single-sentence paragraphs, which is not particularly liked; but at this stage it appears to be reasonably acceptable and I'm not insisting on a re-write.

I'm put the GA review On Hold so that the three minor problems identified above can be addressed.Pyrotec (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

References 9 and 18 have been fixed. Added reference for Abbotsford Airport ranking. Thank you for your efforts! Greg Salter (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but what is now ref 17 is still broken.Pyrotec (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, looks like I "fixed" the wrong link. Fixed everything now. Greg Salter (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Main review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


A interesting, readable artilce

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Congratulations, I'm awarding this article GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)