Talk:Big Butte Creek/GA1

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Like the earlier passed GA, Little Butte Creek (Rogue River), this article is very well written with excellent prose, and meets the guidelines specified in the manual of style as well as wikiproject rivers.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Pretty much everything that should be cited is. Sources are reliable.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Mostly complete. Since I mentioned it during the review of Little Butte Creek, I should also ask about recreational activities in association with this river as well, which do not seem to be mentioned.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article is written in a neutral tone with no WP:NPOV violations.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The article is stable with no major edit-warring or WP:3RR violations. Although the article is very new, having just been created on February 6, 2010, I don't anticipate this article to have stability issues.
 * 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):
 * Images are all tagged and captioned appropriately.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article can be promoted once the issue with recreation is solved. Cheers! WTF? (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a recreation section. Thanks again for the review!  Little  Mountain  5   15:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The article now meets the good article criteria and will be listed. Cheers! WTF? (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)