Talk:Chain Island

Chain Island has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 23, 2022. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Chain Island appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 December 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that when the U.S. government wanted to remove Chain Island, a group of "California capitalists" offered to do it for free, recouping expenses by mining it for gold?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chain Island.

Wikipedia

Islands

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that when the government wanted to remove Chain Island as a navigational obstacle in 1903, a group of "California capitalists" offered to do it for free, recouping expenses by mining it for gold? Source: "Where Would They Put The Sand?". Independent-Herald. Yuba City, California. 1903-06-11. p. 2.

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Berknet

5x expanded by JPxG (talk). Self-nominated at 12:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Article has been expanded recently enough. It is long enough, properly cited and has no copyvio. Good to go. GreatLakesShips (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To T:DYK/P4

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chain Island. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 07:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: JPxG (talk · contribs) at 12:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

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:
· · ·

Comments

Prose

Can add a sentence or two in the lead

Done. jp×g 06:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chain Island's coordinates are 38°04′11″N 121°51′11″W^[1]. —

Fixed. jp×g 06:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Geological Survey gave Chain Island's elevation as 0 ft (0 m) in 1981 — do we really need to convert 0 ft?

No. Fixed. jp×g 06:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

although it is designated by the State of California — why not just "California"?

Well, "California" would be fairly vague (random people in California? the land itself?) whereas "State of California" refers to its government. jp×g 06:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2014, sturgeon fishing at Chain Island was still good. — what is "still good" supposed to mean? bit vague ...
on an 1850 expedition — should be "during an 1850 expedition"
War Department — should be linked to United States Department of War
by State of California engineers — why not just "California"?

As above (the state government specifically employed them; they weren't just normal engineers who happened to be from California). jp×g 06:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could link capitalists

Sure. It seems that this phrase is being used in a very different sense than the modern meaning (i.e. a proponent of capitalism), here it is being used to mean something like what we'd now call a "venture capitalist". jp×g 06:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

California's gold rush — should be "California gold rush"

Done. jp×g 06:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sacramento–San Joaquin river system — I'm not sure, but should 'R' bu capitalized?

I'm not sure either, but I think this capitalization is correct -- it's a "Sacramento–San Joaquin" "river system", not a "Sacramento–San Joaquin River" "system". jp×g 06:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

by the United States Geological Survey — I'd remove 'United States'

United States Geological Survey is a proper name, so it has to be given in full. jp×g 06:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The value in inflation template is "as of 2020", not 2022. Using the {{CURRENTYEAR}} would be wrong.

Fixed. jp×g 06:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anything after 1959 to add in the article?

Sadly, none that I could find. jp×g 06:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Images can take ALT text

Done. jp×g 04:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Ref#1 — bare URL? format it.

Fixed. jp×g 06:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mix {{citation}} with other cite-family templates (cite web, cite newspaper)

Fixed. jp×g 06:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref#4 — missing publisher

I don't see which you are talking about. Reference #4 currently has | publisher = Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission, and I don't see any other references without publishers. jp×g 06:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved 24 February 2021 v. 1994-11-03 — inconsistent date format.

Fixed. jp×g 06:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles Times should just be Los Angeles Times

Fixed. jp×g 06:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Various of cite-newspaper templates should be cite-news, but thats fine if you wish to keep it as it is.

Fixed. jp×g 06:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the newspaper citations need "|via=Newspapers.com"

Fixed. jp×g 06:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is it. Putting on hold. Consider removing the stub tag. It is a start-class article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right, here we go. jp×g 02:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do ping me when everything is done. I am willing to keep it open as long as you wish, given that changes would be made. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: What do you think of it now? jp×g 06:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG, I see "Cite error: A list-defined reference named "aaa99" is not used in the content (see the help page)." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Fixed. jp×g 04:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]