Talk:Missoula, Montana/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cadiomals (talk · contribs) 20:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So far I have read through the article and it is well written, organized and broad in its coverage. I will be checking out the citations and references for factual accuracy and verifiability, but so far this article has a good chance of getting GA. Cadiomals (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is my full review:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria This is an organized, well-written, well-sourced article
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Good prose that meets most/almost all WP guidelines
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * adequately sourced where necessary
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * no original research is apparent as all necessary statements are cited
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * Goes into detail without getting off topic
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No NPOV is apparent
 * 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:
 * Some very nice pictures, just the right amount
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The strong points are that it is informative and organized. Prose and citations are adequate but could still be improved, but overall this meets the good article criteria.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Some very nice pictures, just the right amount
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The strong points are that it is informative and organized. Prose and citations are adequate but could still be improved, but overall this meets the good article criteria.