Talk:Humbug Mountain/GA1

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

Just stating the review Polargeo (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

This looks a lovely place but I don't think it is quite there yet as a good article.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Nearly there. I find the lead section dosen't flow very well.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * As I said on the talk page. The article is okay for GA stauts but there is a little overkill on inline citations
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This is the main point I am failing the article on. The geography section is a little circular and confusing and I find I am left wanting for more information. Geologically is the mountain sandstone? I can't really tell. This is important for what is essentially a geological feature. I suggest having a look around some of the other GA mountain articles and comparing the level of coverage on the geology, I think this article needs much more. Also the History section. What group of Native Americans named the mountain? Did they live there? Did they go there? Was it an important place? When was the area first used? Has anyone every lived on the mountain? Do they now? Also climate. If I'm thinking of going camping and hiking on the mountain what time of year would I go? Is it a rainy place? Is it too hot in July? I don't really get any sense of this.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 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):
 * Has it been illustrated where possible? It does seem to be very lacking in images. With just two distant images of the mountain which look very similar to each other. This is quite low for this type of article and I think it probably needs improving upon for GA status.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I hope you can get the article to GA and if you want I would be happy to take another look sometime in the future
 * Thanks for reviewing the article. I may take you up on that offer at a later time. :) Thanks again,  L ITTLE M OUNTAIN  5  00:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you can get the article to GA and if you want I would be happy to take another look sometime in the future
 * Thanks for reviewing the article. I may take you up on that offer at a later time. :) Thanks again,  L ITTLE M OUNTAIN  5  00:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)