Talk:History of Fairbanks, Alaska/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

After a fairly quick read through (this is a long article!) this article appears to be at or about GA-level; it's comprehensive and well-referenced. I'm now doing to do a detailed review section by section but leaving the WP:Lead until last. This might take a day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Before Fairbanks -

• Appears to be compliant.

• Origins of Fairbanks -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Appears to be compliant.

• Boom, bust, boom & City of Fairbanks -

• They appear to be generally compliant.
  • However, references 59 & 60 are broken web links.

• Decline, Slowing the decline & Dredging era -

• These appear to be compliant.

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Statehood -

• Web references 154, 157, 159, 161 & 163 appear to be broken links.

• The Great Flood -

• Web references 175 & 176 appear to be broken links.

• Post-boom -

• Web references 203, 205, 206, 214 & 215 appear to be broken links.

• Modern Fairbanks -

• Web references 217 & 219 appear to be broken links.

Pyrotec (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A wide-ranging well-referenced 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, but many of the web links are broken.

   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:

   This is quite a comprehensive article in terms of text, but for this length of article images are under-represented.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The earlier problems with some web references being broken have been repaired by the nominator. I'm now awarding GA-status. Congratulations on the qulity of the article. Pyrotec (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)