Talk:San Antonio Bay/GA1

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


 * Well-written
 * Lead section
 * For any and all measurements listed in this article, use Convert with abbreviations on, including listed in the lead sentence of the second paragraph. ✅
 * History section
 * In the second sentence of the lead paragraph, what was the name of the British ship that was shipwrecked in 1776?
 * I can't find a name, but I have found a detailed source with an account of all surrounding circumstances.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In the opening sentence of the second paragraph, when in the 19th century did white settlers arrive? Also who is them that the Karankawa slaughtered livestock and committed other crimes? The settlers or livestock? If it is livestock, it sounds like they were doing harm against the livestock.✅
 * For the lead sentence of the third paragraph, when in the 20th century was the port construction attempted? In the third sentence, what was the hurricane featured and its severity toward the bay? Also, what happened to Seadrift between 1926 and 1975 after the Vietnam War?
 * Most issues here have been addressed, but very little is known about the hurricane, so I don't know what else I can add. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Features section
 * In the second sentence of the lead paragraph, what percentage is used for each?
 * I cannot find land usage statistics.


 * Ecosystem section - no issues.
 * Industry section
 * In the second sentence of the lead paragraph, how far does the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway stretch? In the final sentence of the lead paragraph, remove comma after "bay".
 * I can't think of a way to fit that in with disrupting the flow. Any suggestions? --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For the first sentence of the second paragraph, change "oysters" to "oyster". In the second sentence, how many millions of oysters? from the Bay were recalled to the norovirus? ✅


 * Factually accurate and verifiable.
 * All references valid.


 * Broad in coverage.
 * Covers all aspects of the bay, including history, usage, and ecosystem.


 * Neutral.
 * Good in coverage. No major issues.


 * Stable.
 * Several edits done in the past two weeks though they were used to improve the article.


 * Images
 * Both images listed are relevant and valid.


 * Overall
 * Hold - Needs work, but it can be done for GA.

Reviewer: Chris (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good work. You got the GA. Chris (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)