Talk:Wyangala/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JSwho (talk · contribs) 06:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to get this review done in the next few days. This is a long article! No immediate failures.

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Some comments and suggestions

Overall

• Prose, spelling and grammar are good.
• No obvious copyright violations for text or images. I have checked several references that have online links and all are good.
• Good use of images throughout.
• Layout/structure of the article is good.
• I have checked most of the linked references now - all are appropriately used.
• Structure/layout of the article is fine.

Well done, I really enjoyed reviewing this article. I'm going to pass it. JSwho (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

History section

• For the 1961-71 dam upgrade section - you should remove "bringing with them their families, cultural traditions and probably most impactful, their food".

   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• In the post office section, there is no need to mention "drawing in residents on a daily basis to share news and gossip".

   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Community section

• No need to mention current club presidents.

   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• In attractions subsection, remove "well-regarded as an excellent".

   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• When you write "impressive width at its base" use another word other than impressive.

   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I will give more feed back soon and continue with the review. JSwho (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

References

You have a good, extensive list of references supporting your article. However, there are few issues with some of the references:

• You need to add page numbers to the book/journal references where they are available.

   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• For references 86, 88-96, you need to add more specific dates and/or retrieved dates JSwho (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

See also and External links

You do not need to list links that are already shown in the body of the article or in the reference section. Please remove any repeated links from both the see also and the external links section. JSwho (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

   Done - DirtDigger (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)