Talk:Dixon Reservoir

Goals for this Article

These are some goals for this article to get it to GA status.

Additional Sections/Subsections

The main problem with this article is the lack of sections. I had to add 3 subsections and 2 sections since there were none other than the references section. We need at least 10 subsections in total and at least 5 main sections to make the article look a bit cleaner.

Citing Sources and Links

Additionally, we need to cite more sources to further back-up the claims, kind of like evidence at a jury trial. If we don't further support our text, we will be left with a reminder or two on the top of the page. We need at least 1 or 2 references per 2 sentences, or 4-7 references per paragraph.

Detailing and Adding Text

Of course, we can't cite sources without more data to back it up, which s our good friend text. We just need more details to go into the article and a further explanation into what the Dixon Reservoir is.

Once we achieve all three of these, I'm clear to say that this will be a GA.

@The4lines: and since this is technically your article, I'm pinging you so you can read this. I'm positive if we cooperate together on this, it's for sure going to be a GA.

Best of luck, Go-Tsumaroki 15:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC):

@Go-Tsumaroki: I've done 2 GA's before and let me say they were hard, so I really don't think this will get GA. But we could get it to B class or something better then a stub. But your going to have to find a lot more good refs. Best Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 16:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@The4lines: Agreed, but it may take a long time due to the overwhelming lack of sources. Go-Tsumaroki 16:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dixon Reservoir (Escondido)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mark83 (talk · contribs) 14:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead contains information not covered in main body (and unreferenced). References not after punctuation. Spelling and grammar issues, e.g. it's > its, weighting > weighing, "Reservoir's" capitailised mid-sentence, "It has been regularly noted to produce the largest kind of largemouth bass in the world. Beginning in 2001, when a 20 lb 12 oz (9.4 kg) largemouth bass was caught." linked sentences not punctuated as such, exact distances introduced as "about". Also see WP:WTW, e.g. "regularly noted" without sufficient verifability. CDFW incorrectly titled in the lead. "areas to fish" a clumsby way of saying this.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   As noted above, there is information without references. The first sentences of the History section are almost verbatim of the source to the point were its likely a copright violation. Some of the references are not correctly formatted (i.e. missing author and/or publisher).

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Superficial level of detail compared to GAs on this subject. Approximately 30% of the characters (excl tables) focuses on "Dottie" the bass. Inappropriate weight to this issue. What about it's construction as an example of a major topic that is ignored? Or information on the water shortage act that led to its creation. (At the very least the correct title of the piece of legislation would be good).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The focus on the big bass catches seems a bit fawning, however the artice overall is NPOV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The images don't provide the reader with a good understanding of the size of the reservoir, its location and/or context.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Very superficial level of detail which makes it frustrating that there are spelling issues, grammar issues, and basic fails versus MOS in such a small amount of text. Compare this article to GAs on similar topics at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Geography_and_places#Geography for an idea of where you should be aiming at.