Talk:Arlington's Great Meadows/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BruzerFox (talk · contribs) 03:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

As a local, I'm eager to help! This is a pretty nice article for its length, but it could certainly be much better.

You should consider rephrasing much of the lead paragraph. There's nothing wrong with the information the article provides in the lead, but it seems awkwardly-written or clumsy. A specific suggestion, change this:

After being drained in the early 20th century, it turned into a protected area for wildlife. To this day, it also serves as a popular recreational area and an important piece in local flood control in addition to remaining a protected area.

To this, or something similar:

After being drained in the early 20th century, it was turned into a protected area for wildlife. It currently remains a nature preserve and serves as a popular recreational area, and an important piece in local flood control.

A better way to phrase the second sentence, perhaps:

The meadow was once the site of a dairy farm, which was used for livestock and crop harvesting.

Consider removing the sponge analogy from this sentence below, perhaps rephrasing it to "the soil in the wetlands absorb flood waters", and wikilink "flood control".

Additionally, it continues to play an important role in flood control for the surrounding neighborhoods because the soil in the wetlands is known for being able to absorb the water like a sponge.

Consider being more consistent with how the article shortens "Arlington's Great Meadows". It switches back-and-forth between "AGM", "the meadow" and "Great Meadows". I find "the meadow" easy to quickly understand, but for the first mention in a paragraph, "Great Meadows" would be better.

Consider changing this to "for pedestrian and bicycle use".

The park offers a 1.9-mile (3.1 km) network of compact dirt trails for non-motorized use.

Minor note, but replacing "recreational spot" with "park" or "recreational area" would be good, as those feel more neutral to me.

Since the opening of the adjacent Minuteman Bikeway in 1992, it has become a popular recreational spot for residents of Arlington and Lexington.

I think if you could dig up more information to better fill out the article, then that would be a great idea, as it is running on the short side. I recall Arlington Meadows being a spot for migratory birds, though I can't seem to find reliable sources. Just something you could look into. I will also try to find more sources of information you could work into your article.

I don't think coordinates need to be accompanied by a citation, as the links to various mapping applications (which you are shown upon clicking coordinates on Wikipedia) serve as their own proof, showing Arlington Meadows at the location of the coordinates.

Aside from the wikilinks already in the lead section, Arlington, Lexington, and Minuteman Bikeway should also be wikilinked when they are first mentioned in the body of the article.

Not many complaints about sourcing, but more citations from a greater variety of sources would be good, if possible. Almost half of the citations are from the same publisher.

European settlers would settle nearby and use the area to harvest oak, and mine for the Medford Shipyards. Mine what, exactly? Also, rephrase to "European settlers used the area[...]"

You can look over and make these fixes, reply with comments or questions, whatever you'd like to do. I'll get back to you again soon with more comments. Bruzer Fox 03:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsguy17: Just pinging you in case you didn't notice my review notes. I'm aware you're very busy so pop in whenever you have the time. Bruzer Fox 00:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BruzerFox: I just wanted to acknowledge that I just saw this. I will not be able to make the bulk of the changes until next week due to final exams, but I will make minor corrections over the next day or so. Thank you very much for taking on this GAR, much appreciated. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 21:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsguy17 and BruzerFox: This review has stalled for two months. Has there been any progress on this article? epicgenius (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I've been waiting for more direct feedback from Sportsguy17, but it looks like he's disappeared. I'd make the changes myself but I would like his input, if possible, before progress is made. Bruzer Fox 00:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BruzerFox: It looks like Sportsguy17 hasn't edited in two months (since Dec 9, actually). I think it might be time to fail this nomination unless he comes back very soon. epicgenius (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BruzerFox and Epicgenius::I'll take it on in about 4 hours, if nothing changes, and no-one objects. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891:: Fine by me! Thank you, by the way. Bruzer Fox 01:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BruzerFox: I got most of the grammar. I'm not planning on linking any more based on the size. While I too, think it could use more information, at least online where I looked it's not to be found. I'll keep looking. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891:: Excellent, let me know how that goes. After I get back home tonight, I'll see if I have more suggestions to make, or if I can find information worth using. Bruzer Fox 17:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BruzerFox, it looks like the edits Eddie891 made on February 27 were the last ones dealing with this review, and another five weeks have gone by without any further progress. The review has been open for four months now; it's past time to actively be bringing it to a conclusion. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891, BlueMoonset, and Sportsguy17: While I initially had some concerns over this article's length, it seems to me that this article covers the subject matter as well as it can. I've done quite a bit of searching on my own and while there's a lot to say, this article covers everything I could find. Sorry for the huge delay; I've been semi-active on this site but it has been a difficult month for me. I'm passing this article. Bruzer Fox 03:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, my apologies for going AWOL during the review, as I was in the midst of my winter semester at university. I have exams coming up soon so I won't resume (semi)regular editing until May. Thank you so much to Eddie891 for help with making the necessary revisions. Cheers! Sportsguy17 (T • C) 22:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]