Talk:Webster Sycamore/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Maile66 (talk · contribs) 13:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Professional level writing. No copyvio or close paraphrasing found. Spelling and grammar are as they should be.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Everything checks out with MOS dictates.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Sections for References (citations), Bibliography (appropriately formatted) and External links (3 items only).

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   A good variety of reliable sources throughout the article.

   C. No original research:

   None that I could see.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Takes us through the detailed life and death of a notable wonder of nature.

   B. Focused (see summary style):

   Absolutely focused in the body of the article, with the lead doing an appropriate summing up of the article.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Nominator has been the primary editor, with only two minor edits by one editor and one bot.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Cumberland Plateau map is licensed on Commons by the person who created it.

   Webster Sycamore Webster Springs WV 1920 is licensed appropriately on Commons.

   File:Webster Sycamore Webster Springs WV 1955 is appropriately noted with "Media data and Non-free use rationale".

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Images are appropriate to subject, evenly distributed in the article, and have both captions and alt text.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Thank you for providing an opportunity to review an article I found both an enjoyable and informative read. — Maile (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Maile66, thank you so incredibly much for taking the time to engage in this Good Article review. I appreciate your attention to this article and your continued commitment to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)