Talk:Rhyolite, Nevada/GA1

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

All in all, this is indeed a great article and I've really enjoyed reading it and found very few things to correct and nothing to report here, so it's in a way a quick-pass! You should start heading toward FA status. Admiral Norton (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to do the review and for your kind words. I plan to take this to PR soon and then, if all goes well, to make a run at FA. I agree that the link to "crib" in Wiktionary is awkward. I don't think it's against the MoS rules, but it links to a complicated list of definitions. I might be able to find enough source material to do a short article on brothel cribs. Finetooth (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I modified the crib link to link to the specific entry on the crib page (crib), but I believe an article could be a good idea, as I believe there is probably enough material to write one. Until then, I vouch for the link to remain. Admiral Norton (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That is much better. Finetooth (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)