Talk:Trans-Alaska Pipeline System/GA1

GA Review

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

Initial thoughts: Wow, this is really long. The Construction section is an absolurely great canidate for a WP:SS breakout. Stability is fine, the images I checked look fine. Prose is acceptable, with an occasional awkward phrasing or two. Referencing looks fine, but for this length of article, the referencing looks really, really terrible on IE6. I tend to prefer {{rp}} when a paginated source is referred to multiple times, but that's not a GA criterion, just a personal preference. I'll write more later. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about this for a while more, the article can't meet 3b (focus) in its current form. It really needs to have the construction section broken out or trimmed--trimming would be a shame, since it's sourced just fine, so a spinout article is probably the best bet. I'm going to place the GA review on hold for a week pending this improvement. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Thorough and very detailed.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Good

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   While the references are fine for GA status, you may have to replace some for FAC--IMDB, perhaps. Also, when differing page numbers in books are quoted many times in a long article like this, I really prefer {{rp}}, but that's a personal stylistic preference, not a GA or FA criterion.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thanks for trimming down the construction section. You can feel free to add more back in--maybe make it 2x as long as it is now without seeming too unbalanced.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Balanced presentation of the controversies, the plusses and minuses of the impact on Alaska.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   Good use of pictures

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Thanks for making the changes necessary.