# Talk:Trout Creek Hill

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trout Creek Hill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 09:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
Who is the publisher of "Day Hiking Columbia River Gorge: National Scenic Area/Silver Star Scenic Area/Portland–Vancouver to The Dalles"?
Fixed. ceranthor 15:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
C. It contains no original research: 
I am not sure that source #2 supports the content and source #7 does not speak of a dacitic Garibaldi Volcanic Belt at least not there.
Fixed. Source 2 also has information on the subpage "Subfeatures".
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Although I'd recommend that the lists of plants and animals use their own sorting method.
Not sure what you mean by this. ceranthor 15:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The article currently uses the same sorting order as the source text. Normally I use alphabetic or inverse alphabetic when I am taking such lists from a source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I see. I'll fix that now. ceranthor 15:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus These should now be fixed. ceranthor 15:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. 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?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
But the source link to the geology image is broken.
Should be fixed. ceranthor 15:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks, as always, for the insightful review and comments. I fixed most of your comments, and left a few questions/replies. Thanks! ceranthor 15:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)