Talk:Zarqa River/GA1

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

Criteria
This article appears to meet all the good article criteria. The spelling and grammar is correct, and it complies with the manual of style. The article doesn't contain original research, and each claim is supported by a reliable source, when appropriate. The article is successful in addressing the main aspects of the subject. There appears to be no edit warring, or no disputes over the content of the page, and the page uses suitable images with valid copyright tags. Livna-Maor (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Hi, I will be reviewing your article Zarqa River for GA. It looks like a very good little article. Please feel free to contant me with questions or comments. I am adding my initial comments below (and may add a few more later). &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * GA review
 * Comments
 * Needs a general entry under "References" for all the books (not the specific page number here, as is given under "Notes).
 * Under "Biblical Jabbok" - need a reference that this is indeed the river identified in the bible. A historical reference or a geographical reference, a neutral reference of some sort, not a biblical reference is needed for this reference, per Reliable sources.
 * River articles usually have the geographical coordinates in the top right corner.
 * The article needs a little filling out of information. See Project Rivers - Article Structure for ideas as to sections you could add. Since your references seem very good, perhaps it will not be hard to add some more information.
 * Thanks for these initial comments. I've addressed 1 & 2. It seems the geographical coordinates are already in the top right corner. I'll take alook at Project Rivers - Article Structure for ideas. NoCal100 (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 03:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a tag to the statement that needs a citation: "The Zarqa River is identified with the biblical river Jabbok." This needs a reference that this is indeed the river identified in the bible. A historical reference or a geographical reference, a neutral reference of some sort, not a biblical reference is needed for this reference, per Reliable sources.
 * But there a reference there - from The Oxford History of the Biblical World, a historical reference book from an academic press, which says the Zarqa is the biblical Jabbok. I guess I'm not really sure what you are looking for. NoCal100 (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 14:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am trying convert measurement units per Template:Convert. What does mcm stand for? Also, for consistency, you should use one particular unit of measurement first, for example,  either miles or meters first. In one place you use miles first, in another cubic meters.
 * mcm is million cubic meters. NoCal100 (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * fixed the units to always use metric first, for consistency. NoCal100 (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, under references, there should not be any page numbers. These references need to have the page number removed (keeping the reference there) and adding a footnote in the text where the relevant page no. goes.





&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 13:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * done. NoCal100 (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is still very short - 865 words "readable prose size" - and incomplete.  You looked at Project Rivers - Article Structure for ideas and saw the possible sections and information they suggest there. For example, usually the "Flora and fauna" section is relatively complete.  Also look at River Irwell and River Torrens, the two good articles for rivers, to see what you should be aiming toward.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 15:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've more than doubled the "readable prose size", to around 1800, adding a complete flora and fauna sections, as well as adding to the "course" section (subsection on bridges) as well as the history, natural history and environmental concerns section. I've also added 3-4 new academic references. NoCal100 (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You have done very well. I did some polishing and formatting of references. I also added to the lead. Feel free to change what I added. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

Congratulations! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: NPOV
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: