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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]