Talk:Trout Creek Hill/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 09:49, 9 June 2018 (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:
 * Who is the publisher of "Day Hiking Columbia River Gorge: National Scenic Area/Silver Star Scenic Area/Portland–Vancouver to The Dalles"?
 * Fixed.  ceran  thor 15:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * I am not sure that source #2 supports the content and source #7 does not speak of a dacitic Garibaldi Volcanic Belt at least not there.
 * Fixed. Source 2 also has information on the subpage "Subfeatures".
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Although I'd recommend that the lists of plants and animals use their own sorting method.
 * Not sure what you mean by this.  ceran  thor 15:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The article currently uses the same sorting order as the source text. Normally I use alphabetic or inverse alphabetic when I am taking such lists from a source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. I'll fix that now.  ceran  thor 15:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Jo-Jo Eumerus These should now be fixed.  ceran  thor 15:36, 10 June 2018 (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:
 * But the source link to the geology image is broken.
 * Should be fixed.  ceran  thor 15:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * But the source link to the geology image is broken.
 * Should be fixed.  ceran  thor 15:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But the source link to the geology image is broken.
 * Should be fixed.  ceran  thor 15:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thanks, as always, for the insightful review and comments. I fixed most of your comments, and left a few questions/replies. Thanks!  ceran  thor 15:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)