Talk:Banff, Alberta/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Resolute 15:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

The article is not comprehensive at all. There is nearly 100 years of history between 1885 and 1985 that is almost completely non-existent on the article, and the history section is undersourced. Climate is unsourced. Attractions is completely unsourced, and for being Canada's most popular tourist destination, is too short. The media stub section needs some prose, at least. Notable residents = trivia. How about an economy section? Especially given the Calgary Regional Partnership is noted in the lead, but not in the article body. There is nothing at all about the contemporary issues the town faces. There is a lot of work yet for this to become a GA. As such, I am failing the nomination. Please feel free to re-nominate if these issues can be addressed. Thanks, Resolute 15:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)