Talk:Galveston Bay Area/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments
This looks to be a well referenced and comprehensive article. I've quickly read through it a couple of times and it seems OK. I will now start a more detailed review. Pyrotec (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'm just picking up problems.


 * '''WP:Lead -
 * Ref 4 invokes the Harvard-style citation Cronkite (2002), but this reference is missing.
 * reply: Hmmm, I'll have to go hunt. Can't remember if this is a reference I simply forgot to list or if the citation was copied improperly from another article. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Boundaries -
 * Note 11 is used twice as a citation about the Bay community. The citation is a web page on conservation and it discusses fish and tree; thus it does not confirm the statements claimed.
 * reply: I assume that you are referring to the second time the citation is used. It looks like the page has changed. I'll go hunt for a more stable reference to use. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That is the main one as it states La Marque, but it is also attached to: "Though the term Bay Area in its broadest sense refers to all communities near the shoreline, some sources, such as the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership (BAHEP), use more limited definitions, often referring more specifically to the clusters of communities nearest to Houston." Pyrotec (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the ref from the first instance (not specifically necessary) and changed the ref for the second instance. The new ref is still not very good. I'll keep looking... --Mcorazao (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary
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 quality of the article. I'm awarding it GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)