Talk:Lake James (Indiana)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jakec (talk · contribs) 22:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've read the article and here are my comments. --Jakob (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review this article. I just switched from PC to Mac, so I may be a little slow to make edits until I get used to the differences. TwoScars (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• "It is popular as a place for boating and fishing, and has a wide variety of wildlife in and around the lake" in the lead can be shortened to "It is popular as a place for boating and fishing, and has a wide variety of wildlife."

✔ Changed. TwoScars (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• The material inside the parentheses in "During the 1700s, the lake (that would be named Lake James) was part of a huge swamp that was the hunting grounds for the Potawatomi Indians" in the lead seems redundant and should be removed.

✔ Changed. TwoScars (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• There are a few instances throughout the article where 'the lake' is said in too many consecutive sentences. "It" or "Lake James" can be used instead.

✔ Cleaned up "the lake" in Description and Settlement sections. TwoScars (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• "The park's size is 1,260 acres (510 ha), and it is adjacent to all three basins of Lake James—and Lake Snow"...the comma is not needed.

✔ Changed to "...acres (510 ha) and is adjacent to all three basins of Lake James—and Lake Snow." TwoScars (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• "However, settlement of the lake accelerated when an electric railway connected the city of Angola with the southernmost portion of the lake's First Basin, known as Paltytown"...was the basin really known as Paltytown?

✔ Changed the word "portion" to "shore". TwoScars (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• The heading "unusual events" is very subjective. Who decides if an event is unusual? As it seems to be mostly about deaths, perhaps it should be retitled "deaths".

I'll have to think some more on that one. You are correct that the discussion is mostly about deaths. The point is that there are probably not many lakes that have had a plane crash, a hang glider accident, and snowmobile accidents. Those are events that locals remember and readers find interesting, but should not be overplayed. Any suggestions besides "deaths"? "Deaths" seems too blunt, and does not come close to listing all of the deaths in the lake. When this section is fixed or removed, I will also remove "tragedy". TwoScars (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"Major accidents" perhaps? --Jakob (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

✔Changed to Major accidents, edited text. TwoScars (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Calling an event a "tragedy" as is done in the first sentence of the "Unusual events" section violates NPOV and WP:Editorializing.

✔"Tragedy" is gone, and text is edited. TwoScars (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Ten years later, advertisements were proclaiming dancing every night except Monday"...why is "every night" in italics in the article?

✔ Removed italics. The point was that dancing increased from one night per week to six nights per week, but that is obvious without the italics. TwoScars (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• The chain of lakes that Lake James is part of is called the Lake James Chain in the lead and the James Chain in the body.

✔ The source uses "James Lake Chain", "James Chain", and "James Chain of Lakes". I have changed everything to say "James Lake Chain" TwoScars (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Could more information on hydrology be added? See Lake Chillisquaque#Hydrology for an example. hydrology? The site http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ is a good place to get this kind of information.

Will check this weekend. TwoScars (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

✔ Added more info from EPA study and Indiana University's School of Public & Environmental Affairs. Could not find much from USGS other than maps and elevation.TwoScars (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks better now. --Jakob (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• A few sentences of the "Lake James Chain" section are unreferenced.

Will fix this weekend, with every paragraph having a footnote at the end. The source is Aquatic Enhancement & Survey, Inc. TwoScars (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

✔Added more footnotes to redone section. TwoScars (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Speaking of the "Lake James Chain" section, it seems to go slightly off-topic. A short description would be fine, but a long one isn't such a good idea. For instance, we wouldn't want to describe a whole mountain range in an article on one mountain.

I will consolidate the two paragraphs into one. The peer reviewer, who was one of the best peer reviewers I have worked with, suggested describing the James Lake Chain. TwoScars (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

✔Consolidated two paragraphs into one. Mention of the other lakes is now part of a note. Part keeps importance as mentioning where the water in Lake James flows. TwoScars (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. Looks good. --Jakob (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Historical weather data are available"...perhaps this is just me, but I've always considered data to be singular. See also the last sentence of the article on Data.

✔ Changed—I used to always use "data is", but was always corrected when I started working in Washington. No problem using "data is", especially after reading the Data wikipedia article. TwoScars (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• "The park's forest consists of sugar and red maple trees, and has an average density (2003) of 155 trees per 1 acre (0.40 ha)" would be less confusing if written as "As of 2003, the park's forest consists of sugar and red maple trees, and has an average density of 155 trees per 1 acre (0.40 ha)" or similar.

✔ Changed to "As of 2003". TwoScars (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• The etymology of Lake James should be mentioned, if known. Right now, the article just says who named it.

Not much else is known. I will search for more info this weekend. TwoScars (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

✔Added a sentence in history. It is not known for certain why the lake was named James—we only have probable reasons. TwoScars (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• A bit of water quality information should be in the lead perhaps.

I will work on this during the weekend. TwoScars (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

✔ Added a sentence to the lead. TwoScars (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• If the author of File:Lake_James_Spring_Point_1920.jpg is unknown, how do you know he died more than 70 years ago?

I don't know if the author died more than 70 years ago. My dad has the picture, and he says it is from around 1920. The family cottage is in the picture. I wanted to use a Spring Point picture because it was the first area on the lake platted. The picture also shows more lake. TwoScars (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that the date of the author's death is irrelevant in this case—if the date of publication is prior to 1923, its copyright has expired.

(Link to public domain info.) Am I missing something? If the picture is a problem, I will remove it. TwoScars (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It may have been taken in 1920, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was published by 1923. --Jakob (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

✔ I have commented the picture out, and replaced it with a postcard of Bledsoe's Beach. I am having a friend and relative search for lake pictures and/or more information on the Spring Point picture. I also have a picture of some cottages at Cox's Cove next to Paltytown, circa 1915. If a postcard has a postmark prior to 1923, is the postcard eligible to be used? TwoScars (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question, I'd assume so, but it might be advisable to ask an expert at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --Jakob (talk)

• Not a huge issue, but the infobox should have an image that shows more of the lake.

Getting pictures of the lake that don't have people in them will be difficult for me, since I now live on the East Coast. If absolutely necessary, I could try to get a relative to send a picture. TwoScars (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be great, but I won't hold up the review over it. --Jakob (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Working on pictures (see above). May be able to get a simple camera-phone picture of the lake, but the quality may be questionable. Probably will not get any pictures for a few days at the earliest. TwoScars (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Another thing I just noticed. Kemery Island is mentioned in the infobox, but is not described elsewhere in the article. Perhaps there should be a sentence or two on it (or even a short paragraph if it's a large island).

The issue is really Kimery vs. Kemery spelling—the island is already described in the last paragraph of the Description section. The source for the footnote calls it Kimery, so I changed the infobox to Kimery. When I get home tomorrow, I will check with a second source. The island (it is not called that anymore except on some maps) is named after the person that owned it around 1900. I will check on the spelling of his name and the spelling on a map. Hopefully I have just spelled it wrong, and Kimery is the answer. If the second source says the individual is Kemery, and the map uses Kemery, then that should be the one used—even if my source for the footnote spells it wrong. TwoScars (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Checklist

• Well-written
  • The prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
  • It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research
  • It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • It provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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.
  • It contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage
  • It addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral
  • It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable
  • It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images
  • Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
  • Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
• Overall: