Talk:John Day Fossil Beds National Monument/GA1

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk · contribs) 20:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The article meets the good article criteria. These state that the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic", which is by no means as strict as the requirement of "comprehensiveness" at FA (per the failure at FAC).

I'm not sure how much "additional comments" you want beyond establishing if the article meets the GA criteria, so I'll list some issues I would probably have commented on at FLC. I'm not a regular there, so if you know for certain that I'm "wrong" on something, simply overlook it.
 * Under geography, it would be nice to know how far apart the three locations are.
 * No need to repeat the link to the counties so soon after linking them in the lead.
 * Link 'Congress'
 * There is a slight inconsistency in who page numbers are noted in the references

Refreshing reading such an interesting and well-written article at GAN. Regards, Arsenikk (talk)  20:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing this and for your kind words. I appreciate your four suggestions, and I will attend to them shortly. Finetooth (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)