Talk:Roxy Ann Peak/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):
 * The prose needs improvement, in particular the lead. Have a look at WP:LEAD, and just generally try to improve the flow of the article. A copyedit is needed throughout the article, try contacting someone at WP:MOUNTAINS to see if they could go through the article thoroughly.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The references use different date formats, eg 01-01-08 and 1 January 2008. Most of the time, there is no need for references in the lead - simply move them into the main text
 * 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):
 * I'm not too keen on mentioning walking or climbing in the captions. If you can, try to focus on the view the photo is showing.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Nice factual article, just give the prose some attention. \ / (⁂) 10:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed the refs and captions, I'll work on the lead and MOS now.  Little Mountain  5   21:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Updated per changes. Also have a read of MOS:UNLINKDATES - Dates shouldn't be linked to unless there is a reason to do so. The references section contains many linked dates. \ / (⁂) 22:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice factual article, just give the prose some attention. \ / (⁂) 10:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed the refs and captions, I'll work on the lead and MOS now.  Little Mountain  5   21:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Updated per changes. Also have a read of MOS:UNLINKDATES - Dates shouldn't be linked to unless there is a reason to do so. The references section contains many linked dates. \ / (⁂) 22:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Technical copyedit I did a little tweaking to some of the technical details. The NGS reference is more reliable than GNIS for elevations and coordinates IMHO. I removed hyperlinked access dates for the references. My reading of the Manual of Style is that dates should not be linked unless a reader is likely to want to know what else happen on that day or year. Nobody much cares what happen in 2008 yet. I changed some convert values. In general the SI unit is not neccesary and only leads to confusion in my opinion. There is always a default. I think it is good idea to drop the km2 unit. Convert by default converts acres to hectares which is not an SI unit but Europeans understand it and I think it is more meaningful. I notice accessmonthday and accessyear are used. cite ngs does not have these parameters yet. I'll fix it today. I also did a few thinks to make the code more readable. --DRoll (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Prominence I think there needs to be a published source. The value given might be accurate but read No original research.
 * The topo map is a published source. Anyone can follow the ridgeline from Roxy Ann (~3573 ft) to Baldy (3800+ ft). They're only ~5 miles apart.
 * —WWoods (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with WWoods, the topographic map should count as a source.
 * Also, I think all the initial issues with the article have been dealt with.  Little Mountain  5   23:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'll look through it again now. \ / (⁂) 00:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Only thing I can think of is to merge the Prescott Park section into the main History body, simply because the dates jump around in the section currently. Also, the 'controversial bill' should have another reference, and perhaps placed in the History section also. \ / (⁂) 01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've rearranged the Prescott Park section, I'm not sure merging it is the best thing to do, though.  Little Mountain  5   03:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! In terms of where to go from here, pump a lot of effort into the prose, and beef up the history section if possible. Keep up the good work. \ / (⁂) 03:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)