Talk:Lake Neepaulin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LavaBaron (talk · contribs) 01:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Reasonably well-written?

the word "at" in the first sentence of "description" reads a bit clumsy
- Fixed. I recast the elevation fact as a separate sentence a bit deeper in the paragraph. JackTheVicar (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the word "centre" should be spelled "center" as per MOS:TIES
- Fixed. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
this phrase "From the dam, the creek flows southeast from the lake's dam in the southeast direction for another 1.5 miles " didn't make sense to me - is there a way it can be rewritten?
- Fixed. don't know how I missed that one. one of those times you write the passage two different ways and then mix them together in one jumbled sentence. JackTheVicar (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This - with large goose populations contribute phosphorus to Papakating Creek - reads to me that the geese are contributing the phosphorus. Is there a way it can be rewritten?
- Fixed. I originally wrote this passage in a form like it now appears, however on my Neepaulakating Creek article, the reviewer Jakec changed it to the text you asked to have rewritten thinking misguidedly that it was "better"--much to my chagrin--and I sheepishly cut and paste that over here. Rewriting that passage has been an issue in both this and Neepaulakating Creek's GA2. Now, back to the original intent, I think it's much clearer. JackTheVicar (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could we change "an amalgamation of the original developer's children's names" to "an amalgamation of the names of the original developer's children"?
- Fixed. As per suggestion. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Factually accurate?
3. Broad in coverage?

I found a variety of sources indicating local residents have a variety of grievances about various things related to the lake (assessments, rules, and so forth), however, all of these seem WP:UNDUE for an article on this geographic feature.
- Just to explain (in case anyone wonders why): There have been a few lawsuits over the handling of affairs by the lake association, tax assessments and stuff but I didn't think it was pertinent. I didn't want to wade into complaints and cross-complaints, besides if they're suing over lake dues, who knows what they'd sue Wikipedia for writing about their lawsuits. As for rules for boating/fishing/etc. and stuff, I think a lot of what is online has actually changed, and still in the process of changing, or that it's out of date or no longer valid. For clarity, I've left that out. JackTheVicar (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. NPOV?
5. Stable?

Substantial recent rewrites, however, this is all part of the article's genesis and originating from the same editor.

6. Images?

LavaBaron... I'm currently finishing up an offwiki IRL translation project that's held me up from doing much the last day or two. I will take some time Wednesday or Thursday (at the latest) to address your concerns above. Thanks for taking on the review and for your patience. JackTheVicar (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hurry, User:JackTheVicar, take as long as you need. Just ping me when you're ready. LavaBaron (talk) 03:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LavaBaron... I think I've got the points above addressed, do you see anything else or something I could address better? Do let me know. JackTheVicar (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]