Talk:Trout Creek Mountains/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cptnono (talk · contribs) 11:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a great article and looks to be a little bit of expansion and decent peer review away from being FAC material. Some suggestions to meet GA criteria:

Prose and MoS:

• The lead should be expanded and broken into paragraphs. There is enough information in the article and sources to make this happen.
• "riparian" may need more of an explanation in the article along with wikilinking it since it is used so often. "alus sloopes" could be useful but is not as prominent.
• Consider the frequency of "The Trout Creek Mountains". It comes across as repetitive. This is especially true when two paragraphs in a row are started with the full name. Maybe "The mountains" or other variations would work.
• The climate section could be improved with information on average temperatures.
• Prose are not my strongest point as a reviewer. There are a couple words I might change and comas that might be substituted with the word "at". These might be personal preferences. Please seek a peer review for more scrutiny.

Factual accuracy (no action needed)

• My initial concern was that Peakbagger may not be RS. It doesn't appear to be a major concern after looking into it more. IS this a common source in the topic area?
• The tool shows a red reference but it links fine. (no action needed)

Breadth of coverage

• Please address the length of the lead as mentioned above.

NPOV & stability (no action needed)

• Pretty much N/A

Images

• The image under flora should be on the right.
• The image under Human uses should use the "upright" parameter.
• The before and after pictures at the end are a great addition. It might be better as a single image. (no action needed)

• Alttext would be appreciated but is not necessary. (no action needed)

Cptnono (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

How does it all look now? Regarding Peakbagger, it's a longtime site with tons of information about every mountain you can think of and no biases/opinions. So it's very often used on Wikipedia. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You just wrote a Good Article. Please take this to FA. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. I'll see when I have time for an FA attempt. Probably not soon, though. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)