Talk:Central Valley Project/GA2

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

Reviewer: Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 02:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well written

 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
 * Prose is good and very much improved since the last review.


 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation
 * Keep in mind that readers coming across this article may not be familiar with abbreviations like "MW", even when they apply to units, so it's a good idea to spell these out when not citing a number directly as was in the lede (I corrected this). Beyond this, things look OK.

Factually written and verifiable

 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout
 * Very well referenced


 * (b) it 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
 * Be careful with inline citations. Just because an entire block of text comes from one source doesn't always mean it's OK just to put the reference at the end. For example, the history section had many detailed facts present inside it, especially specific dates and numbers. Each of these details should be cited in-line, even if it means repeating the reference a few times. I have corrected this and found no other issues.


 * (c) it contains no original research
 * No indication of WP:OR

Broad in its coverage

 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
 * Very broad, well covered topic


 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Detailed, but appropriate

Neutral

 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * Very neutral and covers all sides. The controversy section is an interesting, balanced read.

Stable

 * it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * No ongoing content dispute

Illustrated, if possible

 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 * All free, however the header image could be better as an SVG. This should be investigated.


 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
 * Images are relevant and appropriate

General comments
An interesting read, indeed. With a little fine tuning, this article could easily become a featured article. Well done. See the concerns above for some things I had to tweak to make it fully compliant with WP:GAC.

Overall
Having satisfied the above criteria, I hereby pass this article as a good article. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 03:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)