# Talk:Siah Bishe Pumped Storage Power Plant

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siah Bishe Pumped Storage Power Plant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Beagel (talk · contribs) 14:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality, no copyvios, spelling and grammar: 
The prose is well written and the spelling and grammar seem to be correct. There seems to be no copyright violations.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
The article's layout corresponds to MOS.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 
The article contains a list of all references and, in general, references are presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. The only exception is the reference 7 which title ("News: IRAN'S FIRST PUMP- STORAGE PROJECT PROGRESS EXCEEDS 90%") uses capital letters instead of the normal style of writing. Also, this link is dead  and should be replaced or archieved from the webarchive.
B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 
The article is well sourced. However, it probably would be better if instead of the large blocks with a number of references these references are place directly after the relevant sentences (e.g. first part of the 'Background' section).
C. No original research: 
The article contains no original research
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
It addresses the main aspects of the topic. It would be helpful if the section or paragraph about environmental impact is added; however, it is understandable there may be not be RS about this.
B. Focused: 
It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
The article is neutral.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
the article is stable.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
The image has correct copyright tag.
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
The image is missing alt. text per WP:ALT.  Also, it would be useful to have an image about the plant itself but at the same time it is understandable that that kind of image may be not available.
Overall:
Pass 
Good work.
Thank you for the review. I repaired the two references and added an alternate caption for the image. Not much information is available on the plant in English let alone a good free image.--NortyNort  (Holla) 01:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)