Talk:Jordan River (Utah)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 20:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am beginning the review. The article looks good but the references should not have underscores in them. Xtzou (Talk) 20:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a well written and interesting article. I did some copy editing for little errors through out the article, and you are free to revert any mistakes I may have introduced. I have only a few comments.

Per WP:LEAD, I think the lead could be beefed up to include summary statements of the sections of the article.
- I'm bad at leads. I'm at a loss... I've got statements from all the sections. Is there any section in particular that you feel is lacking? Bgwhite (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reference titles should not contain underscores. I removed a great many of them, but some remain and should be removed.
- Thank You about the underscores. I was going off a template that included the underscores. Now I know....even worse is that I have a couple of other articles I've been working on that will take a couple of days to remove. You shouldn't have removed all the underscores... I should have done it, but thank you for doing it. I'll do the rest. Bgwhite (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Mormons are mentioned in two different places under History. These should be combined together.
- I'm not getting this. There is one paragraph under History that mentions Mormons and another paragraph under River Modifications. Is that what you want combined? If so, I disagree because in the River Modification I mention how the Mormons started to divert creeks the second day they are in the valley. Just wanting to make known that river modifications started early. Bgwhite (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply
  - "When the Mormon settlers arrived in 1847, the area around the Salt Lake Valley bordered on the grounds of several tribes." (I added the date to give it context).
  - (3 paras later in the same section) "On July 27, 1847, a party led by Brigham Young crossed the Jordan River and bathed in the Great Salt Lake." Xtzou (Talk) 11:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Reworded several sentences. Bgwhite (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In History it says "The first crop to be planted in the Salt Lake Valley was field of potatoes" but previously Indian farmers were mentioned. They must have planted crops.
- Same as above question... I have that they planted crops and diverted water... It's in there for diverting water. Should the wording be changed or the sentence removed? Bgwhite (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply
  - You need to give it context. Under a heading is not enough. If you make a statement like "The first crop to be planted in the Salt Lake Valley was field of potatoes." you need to say, after the Mormons arrived, or after the river was whatever. Give it context rather than making a blanket statement. The reader should not have to do all the work. Xtzou (Talk) 11:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Reworded the first two sentences. Bgwhite (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The 1885 compromise said that if the lake level was above compromise, the Jordan River must not be impeded." I don't understand the wording here.
- Done. Bgwhite (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I missed it, but I did not clearly see where the water of the river goes to. Who gets most of it?
- Oi. I've been on the fence on if I should add a water budget... guess you pushed me off. I added a paragraph in the watershed section. I'm not sure about the paragraph... bunch of numbers and obscure measurements. Bgwhite (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are several sites that are apparently on the super fund list, but how much of a percentage of the river is this? Only three or four circumscribed sites, or large swaths?
- I added that the Kennecott site covers 9% of the watershed. Added how many feet Sharon Steel ran along to the river. I'm not sure how much the uranium site sat next to the river and creeks. Murray site was not next to the river. So, two sites in Midvale sat next to 4%, do I add that? Bgwhite (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply
  - No, you don't have to add them. Giving percentages of each site gives the reader an idea. I was left confused over how extensive these super fund sites were. Xtzou (Talk) 11:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Reworded first sentence in last paragraph. Bgwhite (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note about the references. If you intend to go further with this article, the reference format needs to be standardized, and be sure to enter the author, date etc. when available. I added the author to a couple of references. Also, there is some kind of rule against mixing reference formats. e.g. {{cite web}} etc. should not be used with {{citation}}. Also I think only {{citation}} is supposed to be used with {{Harvnb}}.
- Done. Ran it through the citation bot. Bgwhite (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that I moved a few references to the end of a sentence. Unless there is a compelling need, like a quotation, it is best not to break up the flow of a sentence with references in the middle.

Speaking of "flow", there is some repetitious use of languages such as "flow" and "the river". I changed some of this. If you intend to go further, you should be sure and get a copy edit directed and the use of language in the article. FAC, for example, is extremely picky about the use of languages, as well as referencing quality and format (among other things).

I will put the article on hold while you take care of these few things.

Xtzou (Talk) 21:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. Some may complain of WP:Overlinking. You might consider whether all the wikilinks are necessary. Certainly, if you ever went to FAC that would be an issue. Others, a good article. Xtzou (Talk) 16:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: Clear and concise writing

B. MoS compliance: Complies with the basic MoS
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: Sources are reliable

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: Broad in scope

B. Focused: } Remains focused on topic
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 16:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]