Talk:Oroville Dam: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
GA pass |
m Bot updating {{ArticleHistory}} |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ArticleHistory |
|||
{{GA|date=21:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)|topic=Computing and engineering|page=1|oldid=510489949}} |
|||
|action1=GAN |
|||
|action1date=21:35, 2 September 2012 |
|||
|action1link=Talk:Oroville Dam/GA1 |
|||
|action1result=listed |
|||
|action1oldid=510490987 |
|||
|currentstatus=GA |
|||
|topic=engtech |
|||
}} |
|||
{{WikiProject California|class=GA|importance=high}} |
{{WikiProject California|class=GA|importance=high}} |
||
{{WikiProject Dams|class=GA|importance=high}} |
{{WikiProject Dams|class=GA|importance=high}} |
||
Revision as of 19:16, 8 September 2012
 | Oroville Dam has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | California GA‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Dams GA‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Flood protection cost savings
This article needs sources. It makes allegations regarding the cost savings from flood protection but does not provide a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.154.96 (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Oroville Dam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 00:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a very nice, well-written article. I've only a few minor comments:
- "it is the tallest dam in the U.S." - I added " as of 2012" - is this correct?
- NealthNewsDigest.com - is this a reliable source for damage prevented?
- "Groundbreaking on the dam site occurred in May 1957 with the relocation of the Western Pacific Railroad tracks that ran through the Feather River canyon." - the relocation of the railroad tracks was the groundbreaking?
- I've made a few edits that you're free to correct.[1]
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
- b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
- b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
- c. no original research:
- a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
- fair representation without bias:
- fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- no edit wars, etc:
- no edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- The few comments I made above are not enough to hold up the passing of this article. Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)