Talk:San Francisco Bay Area/GA1

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

Reviewer: Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) 19:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * The copyvio tool brought a few links I'm going to have to read more closely before checking this off. As one (largely harmless) example, the two sentences on burrowing owls are fairly closely paraphrased from . power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * is also a fairly close paraphrasing in the bird section. The other matches were false-positives, either for correctly-referenced direct quotes or from using phrases like "the San Francisco Bay Area" a lot. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is fine after updates. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 14:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass.
 * Pass or Fail: Pass.

Thank you for your review! I've rewritten the sections on the burrowing owl and bald eagles so that it shouldn't be copyvios anymore. I tried running Earwig's tool but either my internet is not working or is very slow, but nothing is showing up. Let me know if you see any other potential copyvios! --haha169 (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The tool is very slow at best, it took over a minute to run for me. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 14:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)