Talk:Neepaulakating Creek/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 19:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Since no one seems to have a problem with me doing the review, I'll take it on.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• So most of my comments are located at the Talk:Neepaulakating Creek/GA1 page. For the most part I think that the article is rather good, however, when reading it again the second paragraph of "Course and watershed" seemed a little to ambiguous. For example "Its topography ranges from..." is unclear as it can (and does) refer to Papakating creek, but, as "it" throughout the rest of the article refers to Neepaulakating creek, it can cause confusion.
  • Fixed. I think I've clarified that paragraph between the work today and some emendations I've made during GA1. Do let me know if it is sufficiently clear and unambiguous. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Further, the last two sentences could stand to be improved: "Developed lake communities with large goose populations along Neepaulakating Creek and the nearby Clove Brook contribute phosphorus to Papakating Creek. The phosphorus may originate from the runoff of fertilizer applications on residential lawns and agricultural operations." I think combining them into one sentence would be better, as well as stating up front the phosphorous content and then the causes would be more logical and make for better prose.
  • Fixed. I originally wrote this passage in a form like it now appears, however, the reviewer Jakec changed it to the text you asked to have rewritten thinking misguidedly that it was "better"--much to my chagrin--and I sheepishly didn't look back at it. I think it's much clearer. JackTheVicar (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• These comments about images are optional for GA but still something to think about. First, I think a map of the course would really help the article from the standpoint of a layman. Second, while there's no guidelines against galleries, I've never found them to be a particularly compelling addition. Keep it or don't, but give some thought to a commons category over a gallery.

• Reply - I don't think many Wikipedia readers actually go to Commons to go through pictures (I know as a longtime Wikipedia user, I don't—I can count the number of times I have done so while reading an article in the last two years on both hands), so I'm a little inclined to stick with the gallery. I tend to err on the side of the notion that a few photos in a gallery can be rather effective. If the article were able to be longer, I'd incorporate them within the text (as I'm planning to do for my rewrite of Papakating Creek. As for the map, I wholeheartedly agree. I reached out to a few Maps/Graphics people a few days ago and am aiming to get that together in the next few days. A map is definitely one element I intend to add once one can be drawn up and a must for me moving forward. I'll address the other two issues later tonight, presently on a deadline to translate some Middle English for an IRL project. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Results

On hold pending the first two changes to clarify the second paragraph. Once that's done it's good to go. Wugapodes (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Wugapodes... I'm currently finishing up an offwiki IRL translation project that's held me up from doing much the last day or two. I will take some time Wednesday or Thursday (at the latest) to address your concerns above. Thanks for taking on the review and for your patience. JackTheVicar (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I just closed a review after 30 days of no activity, so I tend to work at a glacial pace. Wugapodes (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Wugapodes I think I've addressed your concerns above after a brief delay (I apologize again for the inconvenience). I almost forgot about it yesterday and today when I came back onwiki to polish up Malcolm Guite before I released it out of my sandbox. You mentioned above some issues you might have brought up in GA1--I've looked through the wall of text there and I think I've covered them (but might be missing something hiding in there), so please do let me know if I've neglected to notice any outstanding or insufficiently address issues from there. Many thanks. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You addressed those already. It was more for others who look at the review to know why this was a short review (because most of my issues were already covered previously). You're good.

Listed Overall, I think it satisfies all the GA criteria. It seems that the sources are rather exhausted, so I doubt it can be expanded much more, but there's almost always to improve the prose, and a peer review might help. Keep up the good work! Wugapodes (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)