Talk:Atlas Tract/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 15:59, 13 January 2022 (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):
The prose is fine, and the article appears to comply with the relevant portions of MoS. It would be nice to have all the dates in the sources formatted in a consistent fashion.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
The article's claims are supported by citations to reliable published sources throughout. All of the content checks out with the sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I'd like to see a few more aspects of the topic discussed to achieve "broad coverage". First, the "Geography" section needs more description of the shape, terrain and setting of the island: is the island perfectly flat, or is there any relief? What is the land cover like? Are there any features to speak of? Do the bodies of water that surround it have names (I see some in the "Municipal Service Review" source)? Are other islands adjacent? It would also be nice to have something about the climate and ecology, even if it's something quite cursory, like, "The island has the Mediterranean climate and wetland biome characteristic of the wider delta region" (with a source, of course). I see lots more good information in the MSR source that the article would benefit from.

In the "History" section, some sort of description of who Charles E. Knapp might have been would be helpful ("a businessman involved in the SoPac railroad and land development in the area"). We're told that no mass excavation to construct a marina had occurred "as of 1993"; can this be updated?

The article is generally focused and doesn't stray from the topic inappropriately. Is the 2006 mosquito spraying a sufficiently notable event to merit inclusion? Is this the only time the area has ever been sprayed, or something?

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The coverage of the topic is appropriately neutral and doesn't e.g. promote the island or exaggerate its significance.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No major changes in months.
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 article has a clear satellite image of the island, from a public-domain US government source.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
A great start! I'd like to see some content added to round out the coverage before promoting it, but what's here is good. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bryanrutherford0: I have made some modifications -- let me know what you think. jp×g 06:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great progress! I still wonder about the mosquito spraying, but my major remaining issue is that I expect an article about an island to contain at least a basic description of the island. Here are some examples of what I mean: "It has the rough shape of a rectangle measuring about 150 m x 100 m, with an indentation in the southeast corner. The island has no significant relief and rises less than one foot above sea level. The large majority of the land is planted with row crops." Some sense of what the island is like and what one would see while standing on it is the last piece I think is needed to achieve broad coverage. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Hey, love to hear back about this. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Still waiting to hear back from you about this; at some point the nomination will have to fail, in the absence of a response. Hope you're well! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is now failed for want of response from the nominator, unfortunately. It's very close, if anyone wants to improve the breadth of coverage and run it again. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bryanrutherford0: Sorry for the delay; I've incorporated the changes above, would appreciate a second look (if you want, I can open a second nomination for this). jp×g 01:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that will suffice to address my concerns. The article is now a pass; it's very short, but I think it probably says most of what there is to say about this island. Thanks! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]