Talk:Ice Mountain/GA1

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

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * I normally prefer to help an article pass GA review by making minor corrections myself then placing it on hold for improvements if it is reasonably close. Unfortunately, this article has too many issues. With some more work it may be renominated someday. Aaron north (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I did not look too deeply into the sources since there were many other issues with the article, but the sources do appear reliable and all claims seem to be cited.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * coverage doesn't seem to be a major problem, there is a lot of data to work with.
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Issues

 * Should the name of the article be "Ice Mountain"? I would have thought that "Ice Mountain Preserve" would have been more appropriate, with "Ice Mountain" leading to either the beverage (more well known) or a disambig page.
 * This article needs some copy-editing, there are too many minor issues to list them all.
 * I agree with the suggestion made earlier this year that the article should probably be reorganized to discuss history and conservation first.
 * I also agree with the suggestion regarding the 3 infoboxes, I do not see the need for all 3 infoboxes. We might need a different infobox summarizing all the important data, or perhaps a box for the preserve and another for Ice Mountain.
 * The lead does not mention many sections of the article.
 * The Flora section is problematic, it could be re-written, or at the very least in its current form, the final paragraphs should be restated in a list format.
 * Although images are not strictly required for most Good Articles, I would think that a free or fair use image would be available for the top of the page, given that we are talking about a nature preserve which features a mountain.