Talk:Rampart Dam/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * One prose comment: if you are going to not use convert, add a non-breaking space between number and measurement. I would recommend the use of the template, because there are multiple instances where the manual conversion is using the wrong number of significant digits. Otherwise well written.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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:
 * Congratulations, the article meets all the GA criteria. Some ideas: try to reduce the amount of red links by making stub or equivilent articles, in particular those that are closely related to the dam project. Would a "legacy" section be approporiate? I am just thinking aloud here, but in Norway we had the Alta controversy in the late 1970s and early 80s, regarding a similar, albeit much smaller, project far up in the uninhabited (save for the Sami) north. While the Alta Power Station was built, this was the last dam of any size to be built in Norway. So, how did Rampart Dam not being built influence the political opinion on dam-building and nature conservation (the latter that really got going in the 1970s). I will leave these ideas for you to pounder upon. Arsenikk (talk)  23:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Concerning ideas towards FA; I am somewhat limited in that I have never succeeded at FAC, nor written anything but a stub concerning a power station. My first thought is that the number of red links needs to be reduced [including Rampard Dam (Colorado)]. This is of course without reducing the number of links, but making stub articles. I tried fixing all grammer, typing, typographical and MoS issues I found, but writing 'brilliant prose' is not my strength in article work. Unfortunetly, the guys at FAC usually are much better at me and finding this sort of stuff, but in my mind it is fairly close to FA standards (much better than most stuff that goes through GA). As for structure, I though perhaps that the "weather" section was somewhat short for its own top-header, but I cannot find anywhere else it would logically go, and it does not need expansion either. Perhaps an image of the area would be available? There are lots of maps, but no pictures of the area. Oh, and the lead talks about GW, while the body uses TWh/year. Since these only in theory are the same (since a dam would not produce at full capacity all year round), including both under "electrical argument" would be better. I am sorry I cannot think of anything more now (hopefully because there are few issues). Good luck with the editing. Arsenikk (talk)  08:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Congratulations, the article meets all the GA criteria. Some ideas: try to reduce the amount of red links by making stub or equivilent articles, in particular those that are closely related to the dam project. Would a "legacy" section be approporiate? I am just thinking aloud here, but in Norway we had the Alta controversy in the late 1970s and early 80s, regarding a similar, albeit much smaller, project far up in the uninhabited (save for the Sami) north. While the Alta Power Station was built, this was the last dam of any size to be built in Norway. So, how did Rampart Dam not being built influence the political opinion on dam-building and nature conservation (the latter that really got going in the 1970s). I will leave these ideas for you to pounder upon. Arsenikk (talk)  23:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Concerning ideas towards FA; I am somewhat limited in that I have never succeeded at FAC, nor written anything but a stub concerning a power station. My first thought is that the number of red links needs to be reduced [including Rampard Dam (Colorado)]. This is of course without reducing the number of links, but making stub articles. I tried fixing all grammer, typing, typographical and MoS issues I found, but writing 'brilliant prose' is not my strength in article work. Unfortunetly, the guys at FAC usually are much better at me and finding this sort of stuff, but in my mind it is fairly close to FA standards (much better than most stuff that goes through GA). As for structure, I though perhaps that the "weather" section was somewhat short for its own top-header, but I cannot find anywhere else it would logically go, and it does not need expansion either. Perhaps an image of the area would be available? There are lots of maps, but no pictures of the area. Oh, and the lead talks about GW, while the body uses TWh/year. Since these only in theory are the same (since a dam would not produce at full capacity all year round), including both under "electrical argument" would be better. I am sorry I cannot think of anything more now (hopefully because there are few issues). Good luck with the editing. Arsenikk (talk)  08:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Concerning ideas towards FA; I am somewhat limited in that I have never succeeded at FAC, nor written anything but a stub concerning a power station. My first thought is that the number of red links needs to be reduced [including Rampard Dam (Colorado)]. This is of course without reducing the number of links, but making stub articles. I tried fixing all grammer, typing, typographical and MoS issues I found, but writing 'brilliant prose' is not my strength in article work. Unfortunetly, the guys at FAC usually are much better at me and finding this sort of stuff, but in my mind it is fairly close to FA standards (much better than most stuff that goes through GA). As for structure, I though perhaps that the "weather" section was somewhat short for its own top-header, but I cannot find anywhere else it would logically go, and it does not need expansion either. Perhaps an image of the area would be available? There are lots of maps, but no pictures of the area. Oh, and the lead talks about GW, while the body uses TWh/year. Since these only in theory are the same (since a dam would not produce at full capacity all year round), including both under "electrical argument" would be better. I am sorry I cannot think of anything more now (hopefully because there are few issues). Good luck with the editing. Arsenikk (talk)  08:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)