Talk:Omak, Washington/GA1

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

Reviewer: BDD (talk · contribs) 21:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I don't have any concerns with MoS compliance, but there's some awkward, choppy prose, especially in the lede. Phrases like "Therefore, farmers came looking for shelter" made me say "Huh?" Copy editing for tone would be helpful. TBrandley has done great work here, but a second pair of eyes can work wonders. I'd suggest requesting copy editing with the Guild of Copy Editors here. Most or all of the redlinks in the prose could be targeted to existing articles. Personally, I would rename the Culture section Tourism, after its only subsection. A short section on some other aspect of Omak culture would be a better solution, though.
 * Most concerns here have been addressed, and I just need to do some copyediting work and then we will see where we are at.  TB randley  03:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've done a thorough copyedit to the article, so could you take a look at the current status and let me know where we are at.  TB randley  05:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I still had a few concerns, but they were minor enough that I've done them myself. Good work overall; I like the Breadline Cafe's standalone article. --BDD (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Overall, the sourcing is good, if not FA level. Some of the references are probably excessive, such as the Google Maps measurements to neighboring towns. These can probably be trimmed, as there's no shortage of legitimate references to reliable sources. There's at least one factual inaccuracy ("The nearest Canada–United States border... lies about 45 miles (72 km) to the south."). The status of Heritage University and Wenatchee Valley College in Omak should be clarified in the lede. Without mentioning that those institutions have branches in Omak, the reasonable assumption would be that they are based there. (This is not a problem in the body.) I have no concerns about original research in the article.
 * Mostly done All concerns addressed, other than the measurement sourcing issue. I have kept these because they keep things verifiable and reliable, which is part of the criteria.  TB randley  02:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The Topography section may be a bit overly detailed, but that's just my opinion. In other cases, there's definitely more detail than is necessary for an encyclopedia article. We don't need to know every church, every chain restaurant, etc. in the town. Consider only mentioning businesses, such as the Breadline Cafe, that have received coverage in independent sources. It just doesn't seem important to know that there's a Pizza Hut or a Safeway, and links to those businesses' location finders do nothing in terms of good sourcing (see comments in #2).
 * Mostly done All concerns addressed, other than the topography section issue. I actually modeled that section of this featured article which has a larger length, and I believe all items in the subsection are necessary and key to its geography. If you'd like me to remove specific overdetailed parts, then I probably could.  TB randley  02:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I'm uncomfortable the statement "Omak has a relatively high crime rate compared to the Washington and United States average." If the differences are obvious enough that that statement is a no-brainer, include the relevant statistics for Washington or the US. Otherwise, remove it unless it can be supported by a reliable source.
 * ✅  TB randley  02:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * There are some very nice pictures here.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The prose needs a review/copy edit from another editor, and probably some trimming of excessive detail, but we're very close. It's certainly a good article, and looks likely to be a Good Article soon.
 * Passed at 23:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC) after responses to feedback. Congratulations!
 * Passed at 23:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC) after responses to feedback. Congratulations!