Talk:Little Butte Creek/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! First, I must say that this article is very, very well researched, well written, and well done! It's difficult to find anything really wrong with this. Here is how it measures up against the six good article criteria:

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The prose is of very high quality (save a few very minor copyedits that were easier to do myself). It follows Wikipedia's manual of style as well as the guidelines specified by Wikiproject Rivers. Although there are a few deviations from the Rivers guideline, most of the content suggested there has been integrated into other areas (such as economic information integrated with history, for example). I would recommend a minor change of the order of sections: move 'watershed' and 'flora and fauna' up to just after 'course', since these are mostly natural descriptions. Then go into 'history' and 'pollution'.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
There really isn't anything wrong with the references and citations. It is adequately sourced.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It's mostly complete, but I can see that two key sections are missing. One, based on the previous peer review, a section on 'recreation' could be added, describing recreational activities in the area. A quick google search indicates that there's several trails in the area, fishing, etc. The article is also missing a list of tributaries and a list of crossings. These could be added to two short sections near the end of the article.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The article is written in a neutral tone.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
The article meets stability requirements as I cannot see any evidence of edit-warring or WP:3RR violations.
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):
The images are all tagged and captioned appropriately.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I think this article can be passed once the issues raised in this review are met. Overall, it's in very nice shape and very close to GA status. Nice work! WTF? (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both the kind words and the review! I rearranged the sections as suggested, and I will work on a recreation section over the next few days. I'm not sure a list of tributaries is necessary, firstly because all of them are described earlier in the course section, and secondly because not one of the FA Class River articles have such a section. Thoughts? Thanks again, Little Mountain 5 00:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a short recreation section. Little Mountain 5 15:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of tributaries probably isn't needed since this isn't a major river. I was going by the Wikiproject Rivers guidelines for that. Since it's covered elsewhere, that's probably good enough. WTF? (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I also added the crossings of the mainstem to the course section. Little Mountain 5 23:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets the six good article criteria now and can be listed. Nice work! WTF? (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Little Mountain 5 00:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]