Talk:Edmonton/GA2

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


 * Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for starting the review i have been waiting awhile i look forward to you comments and other stuff you may half to say.  Cheers  Kyle1278 18:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Initial review
This a comprehensive, wide-ranging, well-illustrated, article. It should get through WP:WIAGA without too much difficulty this time round. I've have a look at a fair 'sample' of the illustrations and the copyrights appear to be OK. I've still need to check in-line citations and references; and there are a few (but not many) paragraphs without citations, but this might not be too serious - we will see when I get to them.Pyrotec (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * History - "problems" with references:
 * War years - citation needed for merger with Strathcona, Alberta.
 * Ref 15 -page load error.
 * Ref 18 - broken link.
 * Ref 20 - Its not clear what the map in the ref is showing or verifying.
 * ✅ It was to show the path of the tornado relative to Edmonton but i have changed the link.
 * Ref 20 - Its not clear what the map in the ref is showing or verifying.
 * ✅ It was to show the path of the tornado relative to Edmonton but i have changed the link.
 * ✅ It was to show the path of the tornado relative to Edmonton but i have changed the link.


 * Geography & location
 * What was ref 45 (Famous 5) and ref 46 (common tree species), now ref 46 & 47, are both the same = Famous 5. The second version needs changing.


 * Infrastructure
 * Ref 90 refers to wikipedia - wikipedia is not a valid reference for wikipedia, so it has to go, but ref 89 is OK.
 * Ref 94 & 95 are identical, so one ref will serve both in-line citations.
 * Ref 94 & 95 are identical, so one ref will serve both in-line citations.


 * City Life
 * Refs 114 & 115 are broken.
 * 115 worked for me try it again and if it dose not work ill change it other wise i fixed 114.
 * Currently it is Refs 112 & 113 that are broken.Pyrotec (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 116 is "wrong".
 * At the end of Culture', a ref is needed for - "Edmonton was named cultural capital of Canada in 2007".
 * At the end of Culture', a ref is needed for - "Edmonton was named cultural capital of Canada in 2007".
 * At the end of Culture', a ref is needed for - "Edmonton was named cultural capital of Canada in 2007".


 * Retail
 * An update is needed for statement - "In 2008, Windermere a power centre is expected to be built".


 * Pyrotec (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the article, I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much and i plan to keep the article up to GA.  Cheers  Kyle1278 17:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It should not have passed quite so easily in that state, as there were serious organizational issues that needed to be fixed. But I made a few edits and I think it's up to par now. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing it up.  Cheers  Kyle1278 15:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)