Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Klamath River/1

Klamath River

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. Hog Farm _Talk 04:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Are you thinking of the lede? Or the "Indigenous people" section? Overall, the article seems very well-sourced to me. It would help if you could sprinkle {{cn}} where you think the article is lacking. — hike395 (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hike395: I have added the cn tags. It was mostly in the "Indigenous people" section, although there was other prose that also needed citations. This is to fulfil the GA criteria requirement that "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)". The lead usually does not require citations. Z1720 (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look and fix the missing citations. I agree that the "indigenous people" section isn't up to snuff. — hike395 (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have fixed all of the missing citations, mostly by removing off-topic uncited material. I also tidied up the article by moving material into the "indigenous people" section, and also using {{harvnb}}. — hike395 (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Citation concerns resolved, no other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.