Talk:Siah Bishe Pumped Storage Power Plant/GA1

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

Reviewer: Beagel (talk · contribs) 14:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality, no copyvios, spelling and grammar:
 * The prose is well written and the spelling and grammar seem to be correct. There seems to be no copyright violations.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * The article's layout corresponds to MOS.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * The article contains a list of all references and, in general, references are presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. The only exception is the reference 7 which title ("News: IRAN'S FIRST PUMP- STORAGE PROJECT PROGRESS EXCEEDS 90%") uses capital letters instead of the normal style of writing. Also, this link is dead and should be replaced or archieved from the webarchive.
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * The article is well sourced. However, it probably would be better if instead of the large blocks with a number of references these references are place directly after the relevant sentences (e.g. first part of the 'Background' section).
 * C. No original research:
 * The article contains no original research
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * It addresses the main aspects of the topic. It would be helpful if the section or paragraph about environmental impact is added; however, it is understandable there may be not be RS about this.
 * B. Focused:
 * It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article is neutral.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * the article is stable.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * The image has correct copyright tag.
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The image is missing alt. text per WP:ALT. Also, it would be useful to have an image about the plant itself but at the same time it is understandable that that kind of image may be not available.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass
 * Good work.
 * Thank you for the review. I repaired the two references and added an alternate caption for the image. Not much information is available on the plant in English let alone a good free image.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)