# Talk:Athabasca Valles

This review is transcluded from Talk:Athabasca Valles/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mgasparin (talk · contribs) 18:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

1a. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors: 
1b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable with no original research?

It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
2a. Has an appropriate reference section: 
I noticed that some sentences that do not have references at the end of them, (eg. first paragraph) but do have references at the end of the paragraph.  I assume that these references apply to the whole paragaraph, but it is slightly ambiguous. 
It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
Images look very good and illustrate the main points well. 
Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Overall, this is a good article. I am unsure about the references, but if I could get a comment on this that would be excellent and I would be fine to pass this article.
Pass or fail? 

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I am a contributor to this article who is editing from a different IP, and I saw your comment about the referencing concern and I just wanted to check in, and to clarify what you are referring to exactly. I made some adjustments where I added references in the two lead paragraphs of the article.
To clarify, in the first paragraph, those three citations at the end of the paragraph are actually backing the claim that Athabasca Valles is the youngest outflow channel on the planet because that claim is a pretty striking one to make in the context of Martian geomorphology, as I am seeing in the literature. 210.195.225.109 (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for you edits. I was referring to how some references were at the end of paragraphs instead of at the end of their resepective sentences, which could be ambiguous. Having looked at the article again, I am okay to pass it. Thanks! Mgasparin (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)