Talk:Rika's Landing Roadhouse/GA1

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


 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments
Looks like a reasonable article, at or about GA; BUT I don't like some of your sentences.

Sorry, I can usually cope with American-English and spelling, but: this aught to be split into two:- "What is now the Richardson Highway began as a pack trail from the port at Valdez to Eagle, downstream on the Yukon River from Dawson, which was built in 1898 by the U.S. Army to provide an "all-American" route to the Klondike gold fields."

As it is at or about the right standard I'll go through the article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Background -
 * * "What is now the Richardson Highway began as a pack trail from the port at Valdez to Eagle, downstream on the Yukon River from Dawson, which was built in 1898 by the U.S. Army to provide an "all-American" route to the Klondike gold fields.[2]" Horrible prosse and difficult to follow.
 * Horrid splice job on rereading, isn't it? I've taken a cut at breaking it up and rewording it a bit. ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC) ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 2 is improperly specified and non-complaint with WP:Verify. I put the title in Amazon and could not find a specific match; I then put the isbn into Amazon and came up with three hits one was this: Valencia, Kris (2009) The Milepost: Alaska Travel Planner. Actually its quite a good match from the isbn - but the title appears to be mis-specified.
 * I've tried to correct this. Not sure I did, give it a whirl. This link in Amazon uses the correct title I think. Using the ISBN link and then following to Amazon also found the correct book. We have this book physically, it's what we used when we were in Alaska recently. (In fact that's why this article came about... we visited the site after spotting it in the guidebook while on the Richardson, and were charmed.) ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC) ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is vagueness over the end of the Klondike gold rush, its appears to be sometime between 1898 and 1902 or 1903, but even that is not clear. A date or a date range needs to be added.
 * What do you suggest for that date, or for the wording? I understand that rushes tend to just peter out (or everyone picks up and moves to the next rush) so I'm not actually sure of the date. ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, take a look at Klondike_Gold_Rush... an article in need of major TLC, it's a bit of a hodge-podge... After scanning the whole thing, I wasn't able to come away with a date for when the rush ended. :) Again, any suggestions you have would be gratefully received here, because I agree, not having an end date makes it a bit confusing. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't know the answer either - I'll let this one throught. ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Early activity -
 * Quite a reasonable section. Well apart from the sentence: "The Tanana River was one of the major rivers to be crossed along this trail, and a ferry became established just upriver of the Tanana's confluence with the Delta River, then called Bates Landing, about 12 km (8 miles) north of the current settlement of Delta Junction, in the area known now as Big Delta."
 * Tried breaking this up a bit. ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC) ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence "The crossing of the Tanana by the WAMCATS line justified the establishment of a station, McCarty Station, in 1907 to maintain the telegraph which was relocated to cross the Tanana there after a fire." has a bit of poetic licence. According to the the reference used, when the original line was burnt a new line was constructed parallel to the trail.
 * Major reword in this area to remove any potential OR. See what you think. ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC) ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Hajdukovich era -
 * Quite a reasonable section.


 * Rika takes over the Roadhouse -
 * Quite a reasonable section.


 * End of an era -
 * Quite a reasonable section.
 * On rereading these three section headings I think there's a bit of overuse of "era".. section title reword suggestions? ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The official policy is in Naming conventions. Because the article's title is "Rika's Landing Roadhouse", the use of "Rika takes over the Roadhouse" is the one that could the the target of objections; I don't see a particular problem over era, but there could be one to the use of "The" in The Hajdukovich era. (Hajdukocich era, Rika takes over, End of an era) Pyrotec (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Today -
 * Superficially this appears to be quite a reasonable section, but I've had to check all the references so I know differently.
 * References used in this article talk about the building being rebuilt with original timbers and some rooms furnished with donated period furniture and fittings. There is no mention of this in the article, so a possible minor problem with WP:Broadness.
 * Can you suggest what should be said here? I thought the donated furniture bit wasn't quite important enough to include but perhaps I erred? I have elaborated in that section a bit. ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * References, Further reading and External references.
 * References 10, 11, 12 and 22 are all reviews of a book called Parallel Destinies which is also mentioned (and is the only one) in Further reading. There are a further two books mentioned in External links, that appear to have nothing to do with this article. We seem to be getting quite close to WP:SPAM.
 * I don't actually have "Parallel Destinies" and it's not available online but it seems to have a great deal of info from John and Rika, the three reviews all give different fragments of info.. if I cut any of them I cut what they contributed factually (a better approach would be to stump up and buy the book, I came up dry on a library search for the book, but while I'm interested in the topic I'm not sure I'm 20 USD worth of interested :) )... that's why I listed it in further reading rather than reffing directly from it, I don't have it to ref from. Suggestions? ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I see the problem. No, I was not requiring removal of the in-citations; I'm "toned it down" a bit. ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Fodors link is WP:SPAM.
 * I only included this to show that the site still is active as a restaurant and is reviewed. Eminently cuttable. However I have tried to (as part of enhancing "Today") include it in the body instead as a ref. (we prefer links used as cited refs instead of used as "further reading", typically) Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:Lead -
 * This is intended to act both as an introduction to the article and to provide a summary of the main points.


 * What you have is quite a good introduction to the article, but it is not so good as a summary of the main points of the article. The Lead needs to be expanded, to possibly no more than twice its current size. At a quick scan, you appear to be missing mention of material covered in the End of an era and Today sections.
 * Will try but what specifically do you think should be summarized up there? I added a sentence or two anyway. ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Summarising so far
Quite a good article, but there are a few (fairly minor) points that need to be cleared up to make this a Good Article. You have the necessary referencing, the article is well-illustrated and its reasonably broad in its scope (well apart from the present). Pyrotec (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review so far... most of your comments seem easy enough to fix with a bit of work, and will annotate above sections as I address them. Its helpful to differentiate which are mandatory fixes from which are suggestions, if possible. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will work through comments/questions/corrective actions in slightly slower time; but I would hope that we can complete this GAN review this weekend. The mandatory requirements are in WP:WIAGA. That has a fair degree of latitude, and some (slightly ambiguous) interpretations can be covered by discussion (or if things go badly astray, and its only happened to me once in 136 completed WP:GAN reviews, by taking it to WP:GAR ). Pyrotec (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary
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:

Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)