Talk:Lavaca Bay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Lavaca Bay has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 10, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know
WikiProject United States / Texas (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (marked as Low-importance).

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lavaca Bay/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    I don't think that environmental groups did the clean up as stated in the last para of the lede, but rather Alcoa itself.
    B. MoS compliance:
    Refs 2, 13, 14 and 15 need place of publication. Refs 13, 14, 15 need last page relevant to the info cited. Title of Ref 14 needs to be capitalized like the other refs.
  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:
    I have no idea where Point Comfort, Indianola, etc. are. The watershed map is OK, but this article needs a map of the bay proper since that's the subject of the article.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
Thank you for the review. All of the above concerns have been addressed. I inserted a map that is showing up as a poor map that I uploaded on wikipedia a few months ago because I accidentally uploaded the nicer map under the same name at commons. I have requested that the file on wikipedia be deleted. Once this deletion occurs, a nice map will show up in its place.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd still like to see some of the failed towns shown on the maps as well, but that's for later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Most of the towns are on the map here. The only exception is Linnville, which was in the same place as Port Lavaca.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)