Jump to content

Talk:Edmonton/GA2

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for starting the review i have been waiting awhile i look forward to you comments and other stuff you may half to say. Cheers Kyle1278 18:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

[edit]

This a comprehensive, wide-ranging, well-illustrated, article. It should get through WP:WIAGA without too much difficulty this time round. I've have a look at a fair 'sample' of the illustrations and the copyrights appear to be OK. I've still need to check in-line citations and references; and there are a few (but not many) paragraphs without citations, but this might not be too serious - we will see when I get to them.Pyrotec (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • History - "problems" with references:
 Done
  • Ref 15 -page load error.
 Done
  • Ref 18 - broken link.
 Done
  • Ref 20 - Its not clear what the map in the ref is showing or verifying.
 Done It was to show the path of the tornado relative to Edmonton but i have changed the link.
  • Geography & location
  • What was ref 45 (Famous 5) and ref 46 (common tree species), now ref 46 & 47, are both the same = Famous 5. The second version needs changing.
 Done
  • Infrastructure
  • Ref 90 refers to wikipedia - wikipedia is not a valid reference for wikipedia, so it has to go, but ref 89 is OK.
 Done
  • Ref 94 & 95 are identical, so one ref will serve both in-line citations.
 Done
  • City Life
  • Refs 114 & 115 are broken.
115 worked for me try it again and if it dose not work ill change it other wise i fixed 114.
Currently it is Refs 112 & 113 that are broken.Pyrotec (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done
  • Ref 116 is "wrong".
 Done
  • At the end of Culture', a ref is needed for - "Edmonton was named cultural capital of Canada in 2007".
 Done
  • Retail
  • An update is needed for statement - "In 2008, Windermere a power centre is expected to be built".
 Done

GA review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


A comprehensive, wide-ranging, well illustrated article.

  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:
    Well referenced
    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 on the article, I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much and i plan to keep the article up to GA. Cheers Kyle1278 17:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should not have passed quite so easily in that state, as there were serious organizational issues that needed to be fixed. But I made a few edits and I think it's up to par now. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it up. Cheers Kyle1278 15:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]