Talk:Canning Dam/GA1

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

This is a nice article. Please resolve the bulleted items by responding below each bullet when addressed.

A good article has the following attributes:

1. It is well written. In this respect: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.


 * I'm guessing most of these issues were hammered out in the peer review, so nice work. one issue: you only need citations in the lead for controversial facts (see WP:LEADCITE), so the one about it as a cutting-edge gravity dam is probably good, but the others should be removed from the lead and incorporated into the body of the article

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it: (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and (c) contains no original research.


 * Nice work with the refs. A couple refs have the source titles all in caps--please modify so all reference formatting is consistent
 * ✅ Appears to have been fixed --Eustress (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it: (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).


 * Very good, but should the History section not be the first section after the introduction?
 * ✅ Appears to have been fixed --Eustress (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.


 * Good

5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.


 * No prior issues

6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect: (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]


 * Is there a reason the dam capacity picture is stuck in the References section? Seems a bit odd. --Eustress (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The caption for the aforementioned picture needs to be expanded a little bit too
 * All images check out fine with regards to licensing
 * Would be nice to have a map of the location, as requested in peer review, but not necessary for GA status

Conclusion
In its current condition, I will put the article on hold for one week until the above issues are resolved, but I am confident it will pass quickly. Please notify me on my talk page when the article is ready for another look-through. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen some progress on this, but some of the bullets above still remain unresolved. --Eustress (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

→It has been seven days and the issues for this article have not been resolved. I have tried contacting the nominating editor to no avail, so I must fail this GAN. It may be nominated another time when an editor has time to respond to the review. --Eustress (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)