Talk:Eddy Creek (Lackawanna River tributary)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Even though the nominator has retired from Wikipedia, I am going to review this article. Perhaps I can get some of the associated WikiProjects to participate. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 08:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc Shearonink (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Good job. Lays out the facts in a dispassionate manner, very factual.

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

2. 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:

   The references need to be fixed. Ref #7 is dead, Ref #8 requires registration or possible subscription and needs to be marked as such, Ref #5 times out. Please consult http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Eddy_Creek_%28Lackawanna_River%29 for the complete list.

   Done with Ref #7 and #8. I am able to access Ref #5 with no problem so I have removed the tag. Cheers,  — Yash ^talk stalk 07:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

   All the referring issues have been fixed. No problems at this time. Shearonink (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Some additional human history should be added, if there were any historical events that occurred in its watershed and also...why is it named "Eddy Creek"?

   The above is still a concern. Shearonink (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

   Shearonink, after a Google-marathon of around a couple of hours, I am still not able to find anything about origin of the name. If there is even a story to it, I do not think that it is available online. About other historical events, I came across a lot of sites that talked about the history of Eddy Creek (most have a brief description). I believe that the article covers all the major incidents and there isn't really much that you can add apart from what is already described in the "History" section.  — Yash ^talk stalk 19:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

   Ok. Probably named after an "eddy" of water rather than a person named "Eddy". Much thanks for researching the name. Shearonink (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Yes, this article does, but, per the "main aspects" criterion it should actually have a little more detail. Shearonink (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

   Am thinking that, if possible, at least one relevant/public domain/CC-BY-SA image should be added.

   Going forward it would benefit this article greatly to have a more-recent photo, but that is a personal preference not a strict GA requirement,

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @Yash!: I will do one or two more deep read-throughs to see of there are any possible issues that I have missed. Pending that, I expect to be able to finish this Review within the next day or two. Shearonink (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment. Nicely-written article about a local waterway. Since the nominator has retired from WP, much thanks to User:Yash! for working with me on bringing this article to WP:GA status. Shearonink (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Non-reviewer comments

It is obviously possible to illusrate this article with free images (criterion 6.). The creek is available for photography. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. As I said above, I was thinking a CC-BY-SA image could be found (thinking perhaps there could be one available somewhere on the internet). I searched for something appropriate but all the images I found were under restrictive copyrights - there are some nice photos from a newspaper local to the area of Eddy Creek but that would necessitate someone contacting the publisher to see if they would be willing to release the image under a Commons license that WP could use.

Of course, it is possible for someone to take a photo of the Creek...are you volunteering to do so? That would be awesome. Shearonink (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Shearonink, I'm not volunteering for the task. I'm just wondering if the criterion can be passed given the circumstances (the wording is ambigious and GAC instructions don't help). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I am not going to not pass it because there isn't a more-recent image, but going forward I think it would greatly benefit the article to have recent photo/s... I will not pass it to GA status if its other major issues are not fixed - the referencing problems and the incomplete human-history. Images are not supposed to make or break a GA Review - if CC-BY-SA images can be found, great, if not well, the actual text is the main thing. And the GA images criterion does give the caveat of if possible - sometimes it is (found online or can go to the actual place and take a photo etc) and sometimes it just isn't. Shearonink (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Shearonink thank you for taking up the review. Since the nominator has retired, I can take up the task of fixing the issues. I will mostly be done by tonight. Best,  — Yash ^talk stalk 07:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)