Talk:Snake River/GA1

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: I found 13 disambiguations. I could not determine whether Snake River Aquifer should disambiguate to Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer or Western Snake River Plain Aquifer; I could find no suitable target for Flathead; I fixed the rest.diff

Link rot: I repaired three and tagged one dead link.diff

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Excellent, I ma very happy to passs this as a good article. Well done!
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Very well written, I venture to suggest that this approaches FAC class. I did make a few minor copy-edits.diff
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * ref #89 requires a login - that needs to be stated in the reference
 * ref #86 and ref  #90  are tagged as expring news links by WP:CHECKLINKS.
 * Dead link fixe. ✅
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This article thoroughly covers the subject without going into unecessary detail.
 * 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):
 * All images tagged and captioned
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: