Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Earth structure/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Rosiestep in topic GA Review

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Rosiestep (talk · contribs) 02:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'll review this one within the week. At first glance, it seems like you've done a nice job on it. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Notes
  • Fired bricks and concrete are derived from earth, but structures built from these materials are usually not considered earth structures. - please add a reference
Citations
  • Lindauer & Blitz 1997, pp. 169ff. - Lindauer & Blitz 1997, p. 169ff.
  • Snell 2004, p. 27-28. - Snell 2004, pp. 27-28.
  • Elleh 1998, p. 47. Harv error: link from #CITEREFElleh1998 doesn't point to any citation. (f you install this, HarvErrors are easy to notice.)
  • Porterfield 2004, p. 39. Harv error: link from #CITEREFPorterfield2004 doesn't point to any citation.
Sources
  • Elleh, Nnamdi (1997). African Architecture: Evolution and Transformation. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-021506-1. Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFElleh1997.
  • Porterfield, Jason (2004-05). The Homestead Act of 1862: A Primary Source History of the Settlement of the American Heartland in the Late 19th Century. The Rosen Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-4042-0178-1. Retrieved 2014-04-27. Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFPorterfield.

@Dr. Blofeld: & @Aymatth2: Not much to do on this one but I'll put it on hold for the 7 days in case you're busy with other things. Please ping me when you'd like me to take another look. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Rosiestep: All addressed now I think except the first one which I'll ask Aymatth2 to add. Thanks for the review!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  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:
    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:

Good job. Looks adequate for GA. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply