Talk:Missoula, Montana/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cadiomals (talk · contribs) 20:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC) So far I have read through the article and it is well written, organized and broad in its coverage. I will be checking out the citations and references for factual accuracy and verifiability, but so far this article has a good chance of getting GA. Cadiomals (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is my full review:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This is an organized, well-written, well-sourced article

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Good prose that meets most/almost all WP guidelines

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   adequately sourced where necessary

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   no original research is apparent as all necessary statements are cited

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Goes into detail without getting off topic

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No NPOV is apparent

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Some very nice pictures, just the right amount

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The strong points are that it is informative and organized. Prose and citations are adequate but could still be improved, but overall this meets the good article criteria.