Talk:Edmonton/GA2

GA Review

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for starting the review i have been waiting awhile i look forward to you comments and other stuff you may half to say. Cheers Kyle1278 18:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Initial review

This a comprehensive, wide-ranging, well-illustrated, article. It should get through WP:WIAGA without too much difficulty this time round. I've have a look at a fair 'sample' of the illustrations and the copyrights appear to be OK. I've still need to check in-line citations and references; and there are a few (but not many) paragraphs without citations, but this might not be too serious - we will see when I get to them.Pyrotec (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• History - "problems" with references:

• War years - citation needed for merger with Strathcona, Alberta.

 Done

• Ref 15 -page load error.

 Done

• Ref 18 - broken link.

 Done

• Ref 20 - Its not clear what the map in the ref is showing or verifying.

 Done It was to show the path of the tornado relative to Edmonton but i have changed the link.

• Geography & location

• What was ref 45 (Famous 5) and ref 46 (common tree species), now ref 46 & 47, are both the same = Famous 5. The second version needs changing.

 Done

• Infrastructure

• Ref 90 refers to wikipedia - wikipedia is not a valid reference for wikipedia, so it has to go, but ref 89 is OK.

 Done

• Ref 94 & 95 are identical, so one ref will serve both in-line citations.

 Done

• City Life

• Refs 114 & 115 are broken.

115 worked for me try it again and if it dose not work ill change it other wise i fixed 114.

Currently it is Refs 112 & 113 that are broken.Pyrotec (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done

• Ref 116 is "wrong".

 Done

• At the end of Culture', a ref is needed for - "Edmonton was named cultural capital of Canada in 2007".

 Done

• Retail

• An update is needed for statement - "In 2008, Windermere a power centre is expected to be built".

 Done

• Pyrotec (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A comprehensive, wide-ranging, well illustrated article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the article, I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much and i plan to keep the article up to GA. Cheers Kyle1278 17:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It should not have passed quite so easily in that state, as there were serious organizational issues that needed to be fixed. But I made a few edits and I think it's up to par now. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it up. Cheers Kyle1278 15:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)