Talk:Wyangala/GA1

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

Reviewer: JSwho (talk · contribs) 06:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to get this review done in the next few days. This is a long article! No immediate failures.

Review

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Overall

 * Prose, spelling and grammar are good.
 * No obvious copyright violations for text or images. I have checked several references that have online links and all are good.
 * Good use of images throughout.
 * Layout/structure of the article is good.
 * I have checked most of the linked references now - all are appropriately used.
 * Structure/layout of the article is fine.

Well done, I really enjoyed reviewing this article. I'm going to pass it. JSwho (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

History section
Done - DirtDigger (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Done - DirtDigger (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For the 1961-71 dam upgrade section - you should remove "bringing with them their families, cultural traditions and probably most impactful, their food".
 * In the post office section, there is no need to mention "drawing in residents on a daily basis to share news and gossip".

Community section
Done - DirtDigger (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Done - DirtDigger (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Done - DirtDigger (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to mention current club presidents.
 * In attractions subsection, remove "well-regarded as an excellent".
 * When you write "impressive width at its base" use another word other than impressive.

I will give more feed back soon and continue with the review. JSwho (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

See also and External links
You do not need to list links that are already shown in the body of the article or in the reference section. Please remove any repeated links from both the see also and the external links section. JSwho (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Done - DirtDigger (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)