Talk:Chemetco/GA1

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

Starting review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The article is reasonably well written, I would prefer the word indicted or prosecuted to criminalised in the lead. (Maybe because I am Irish!). The article is laid out in accordance with WP:MOS, with the exception of the see also section which repeats wikilinks to articles already wikilinked inline. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that Martin451 has now replaced 'criminalised' with 'convicted of...', satisfying this point. Thank you Martin451.Astral Highway (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, I see you have removed unneccesary links from the See also section. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article is well referenced. I have to assume WP:AGF for those few sources which I cannot directly access.  3 links are dead, I have cited them inline. You may well be able to find replacements wia the internet archive. One statement in the Remediation section, When interviewed in early 2005, the Illinois EPA inspector who discovered the secret pipe in 1996 was pessimistic about the chances of rapid remediation of the site. He suggested that the clear-up could take twenty years or so. is noted cited and should be.  If no {{WP:RS]] can be found it needs to be removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have found a supporting reference and placed an appropriate inline citation in the Remediation sectionAstral Highway (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, I fixed the other broken link (US Geological survey) that was missed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article is broad in scope and focused. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article accords with WP:NPOV. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * The article is stable, no edit wars, mainly the work of one editor, no discussions on the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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): {{GAList/check|y}}
 * Images OK, all tagged and correctly licensed. You should maybe add in  somewhere. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|y}}
 * Just a few referencing points to be sorted and the See also section. On hold Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see that I have now addressed the remaining referencing points and the redundant wikilink in the See also section. Thank you.Astral Highway (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work, an interesting article. I am happy to pass it as a Good Article. Future directions for improvement include the provision of an infobox and other elements of style as mentioned at WP:Companies,_corporations_and_economic_information Jezhotwells (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see that I have now addressed the remaining referencing points and the redundant wikilink in the See also section. Thank you.Astral Highway (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work, an interesting article. I am happy to pass it as a Good Article. Future directions for improvement include the provision of an infobox and other elements of style as mentioned at WP:Companies,_corporations_and_economic_information Jezhotwells (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)