Talk:Potomac River/GA2

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

Reviewer: Vahurzpu (talk · contribs) 03:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


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

This has the bones of a decent article, but needs significant cleanup work before it's ready for GA
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The article needs significant reformatting, especially focusing on reworking/removing collapsible sections, avoiding image sandwiching, and removing inappropriate external links.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Sources that are present are okay, but there are entire sections missing sourcing. The Flora section, for instance, just has direct links supporting that the plants grow in Maryland, but not all of Maryland is in the Potomac River's basin. For copyvio, Earwig gives a high percentage, but looks to be just an uncopyrightable species list.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Has only a couple sentences about the geology, which should probably be covered in more depth.
 * 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 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):
 * Not-great-quality pictures are used in a way that doesn't really improve the reader's understanding of the river
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Per WP:GAFAIL criterion 1, is a long way from meeting a few of the criteria.
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Per WP:GAFAIL criterion 1, is a long way from meeting a few of the criteria.