Talk:Chollas Creek/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dionysius Miller (talk · contribs) 20:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Initiative notification: Hello! I'm Dionysius Miller I'll be initiating your (long awaited) good article nominee review! Over the course of today (2/1/2024) and tomorrow (2/2/2024) I'll be putting together your initial assessment. Most likely there'll be a short or medium list of things to fix up some for a pass. I look forward to working with you and hope for success. Dionysius Miller^talk 20:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Review 1.1

Here's your first-pass review. There could be additional points raised but this is at the very least a place to start and hopefully finish. Once the issues are addressed to your liking, I'll get another review in which will take the title of 1.2, and don't worry if 1.2 doesn't give you the pass, I think you are absolutely near GA status for this article and I'll help out however I can. As long as you need to get the article to GA, you have and we can keep progressing. I'll be with you every step of the way. Do give me warning if you have to take a break or leave of absence and I'll do the same. Godspeed! Dionysius Miller^talk 22:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

GA review 1.1

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Here, much of it does come down to personal preference, but I think (particularly the lead) has some ways to better itself: I'd recommend cutting down on single sentence paragraphs and very short sentences standalone under a heading or sub-heading. Under Flora and fauna there might be a way to have a slightly more cohesive flow. Under geography, the sentence: "The Chollas Creek watershed extends from the cities of La Mesa, Lemon Grove, into San Diego largely south of Interstate 8, as well as from an area unincorporated San Diego County. It also runs through City Heights, Encanto, Barrio Logan, and eastern and southeastern San Diego." seems a little bit clunky. I'd recommend trying to find a way to make that run more smoothly. Also, there are a solid number of grammatical issues, improper word choice and tense mistakes throughout. I fixed up what jumped out to me but you'd likely benefit from (I know this sounds stupid) reading this aloud or having it read to you to find minor details here and there. You could also consider throwing it into a third party software but I have little experience in that. Consider taking a look at replacing certain instances of proper nouns with pronouns where appropriate. Throughout, and especially in the lead, you make the oh-so-common mistake of,"X did Y. X is Z. X caused A. X was influential to B." In that situation, simple noun changes go a long way to flow and readability. Also goes back to previously mentioned overly short sentences which feel staccato. There are some points, though this is subjective and at your discretion, where it would be beneficial to combine sentences when appropriate in order to improve readability. Though this can get tedious while also having to keep the encyclopaedic tone of Wikipedia. This alone won't fail you, but it's food for thought.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	In general, this generally follows the MoS, though there is definitely some minor pieces to improve prior to GA status: Check out MOS:CITELEAD, it's a tad nitpicky but definitely worth consideration for the readability of a lead. This is especially true when factoring in the wants and needs. of a casual reader. Also, and this goes back to my comment in 1a, check out MOS:PARA. You have a few too many single sentence paragraphs which are neither in a list format nor inside the context of a larger paragraph structurally. This also applies to certain spots such as under Native American history and less so History itself where there is a single short sentence under a subheading. Flora and fauna, as mentioned, isn't necessarily holding the article back (it being the way it is is fine, just not ideal) but it works as an example of this issue.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	This is some really exemplary source gathering and documentation. I previously did some work on a local creek and this kind of information took some thorough digging. Pretty much perfect here.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. 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).	This, too, is a straightforward pass. Though do be certain to cleanup the lead just a tad.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything is properly sourced, spot checking showed proper citation origins.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Everything here seems perfect, the map in this article also taught me some about California state law regarding government copyrights.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No clear and/or distracting deviations from the main purpose of the article
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Certain aspects of the history are a tad bit overly detailed and could be split or moved to another article. I recognize that's a fairly broad criticism, but I wouldn't mind a little 'tidying up'. Not super necessary though so it'd be more like a cherry on top for further reviews.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It's clear you care, and you say the good and the bad of everyone and everything involved.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	:)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No fair use arguments needed, everything has a proper tag, great job on the pictures you took!
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Everything is relevant and, while I think the article would benefit from additional images, it is clear that this article covers an undercovered (and thus underimaged) subject.
	7. Overall assessment.	Once you fix up the reading, style per MoS, and minor issues mentioned above, it's great and certainly a Good Article!

@Dionysius Miller: I have merged the short paragraphs into other paragraphs that are appropriate and have similar content. I have removed the citations in the lead section per MOS:CITELEAD. I then ran the article content through Microsoft Word, to find any spelling or grammar errors. Please let me know what other modifications are necessary.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Review 1.2

GA review 1.2

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Many of the single sentence/staccato paragraphs were combined where appropriate, certain wording changes made, and some grammar checking made. Absolutely GA worthy
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	MOS:CITELEAD implemented, MOS:PARA implemented. Follows the MOS quite faithfully.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Again, exemplary source gathering.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. 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).	Inline citations present when and where claims are made in the body of the text.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No OR apparent.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Article free of copyvios.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	On topic and comprehensive.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	On topic and encyclopaedic. Though I do think some small work in history might help if you make the push for FA.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	WP:NPOV followed.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable and without ongoing coflict.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All media free from copyvios and include adequate tagging.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All media is on-topic and well placed.
	7. Overall assessment.	Congratulations on your latest GA! I felt and feel a little odd making recommendations and decisions on your work given the gap in experience, but I suppose that's the nature of a wiki. I am happy to know that this article is where it should be in standing and I truly commend you for your continued commitment to the common good and knowledge of all humanity.