Talk:Riverfront Park (Spokane, Washington)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RickyCourtney (talk · contribs) 18:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article is well written. I went ahead and made some minor grammar corrections.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	While the article has a few deviations from the MOS, the lead sections, layout and words to watch are all spot on.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Article has a robust references section and copius inline citations
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The anchors on Citations [23] and [24] are no longer on the target page. Maybe these can be combined into one citation? There are several dead links that need to be repaired, which may be possible with an archived version: Citation [15] (Hickman, Matt. "9 unforgettable urban waterfalls". Mother Nature Network.) Citation [32] (Zhang, Li (May 2002). An evaluation of an urban riverfront park, Riverfront Park, Spokane, Washington : experiences and lessons for designers (Thesis).) Citation [45] ("Spokane River Centennial Trail". American Trails.) UPDATE 1/5/22: These have been corrected.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article is well cited.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Clean report from Earwig's Copyvio Detector.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Coverage is broad without straying out of scope.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is rather long and detailed, but with so much going on in this park today and with it's rich history, it seems necessary.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is without red-flags of non-neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No signs of any recent edit warring. Page continues to receive the sort of normal edits I would expect to see.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images have proper free-content licenses except for the logo which has a valid fair use rationale provided.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	This article borders on having too many images. One thing I noticed right away is that there are at least 5 images that prominently feature the clock tower. UPDATE 1/5/22: This has been corrected.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, this feels like a good article to me. It's a well-written overview of a really interesting place. I've visited the park once in my life, so it was really interesting personally to learn so much about it's origins. After the above items are addressed, this will be ready to pass. UPDATE 1/5/22: With corrections made, this article can pass. Great work, all!

Hi Ricky, thanks for taking the time to review the article! Looking forward to hearing what you think and how we can improve it. :) T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: I believe I have fixed all the issues you found, let me know what you think and if you find anything else we need to work on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T85cr1ft19m1n (talk • contribs) 05:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)