Talk:Hayrick Butte/GA1

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 02:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

GA criteria
: I was pleasantly surprised to find that the article appears free of typos or improper grammar. With this factoring in together with its layout and presentation, the article complies with the MOS policies. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)

: The article's bibliography contains a wealth of reputable sources, to which it has made frequent inline citations throughout. All information in the article is substantially accounted for, and there is no sign of original research. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)
 * (c)

: The article seems very well-versed in the topic it covers. There's a great deal of information on Hayrick Butte in here, none of which seems trivial. Actually, as far as the reading process goes, along with being encyclopedic it was one of the most enjoyable reads I've had while conducting a GAN review. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)

. The article's tone is free of bias of any nature. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC) . According to the revision history, it looks as though the article has not been subjected to any disruptive behaviour such as edit warring, since its creation. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC) : Both images used in this article, at the present date, are freely licensed. With one being a photo showing scenery pertaining to Hayrick Butte, and the other being a map specifying its location in Oregon, both images serve relevant illustrative purposes regarding the subject. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)

Any update on this?  ceran  thor 15:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. I have a few things to take care of, in and not in Wikipedia, but I should at least get some progress made on this within the next several hours. Thanks for reminding me. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

After reading through the article and judging it against the criteria as outlined above, I am confident that it qualifies as a GA. Congratulations, and I apologize for there having been a bit of a wait. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)