Talk:Trans-Alaska Pipeline System/GA1

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

Initial thoughts: Wow, this is really long. The Construction section is an absolurely great canidate for a WP:SS breakout. Stability is fine, the images I checked look fine. Prose is acceptable, with an occasional awkward phrasing or two. Referencing looks fine, but for this length of article, the referencing looks really, really terrible on IE6. I tend to prefer rp when a paginated source is referred to multiple times, but that's not a GA criterion, just a personal preference. I'll write more later. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * After thinking about this for a while more, the article can't meet 3b (focus) in its current form. It really needs to have the construction section broken out or trimmed--trimming would be a shame, since it's sourced just fine, so a spinout article is probably the best bet.  I'm going to place the GA review on hold for a week pending this improvement.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Thorough and very detailed.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Good
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * While the references are fine for GA status, you may have to replace some for FAC--IMDB, perhaps. Also, when differing page numbers in books are quoted many times in a long article like this, I really prefer rp, but that's a personal stylistic preference, not a GA or FA criterion.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Thanks for trimming down the construction section. You can feel free to add more back in--maybe make it 2x as long as it is now without seeming too unbalanced.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Balanced presentation of the controversies, the plusses and minuses of the impact on Alaska.
 * 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):
 * Good use of pictures
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Thanks for making the changes necessary.
 * Thanks for making the changes necessary.