Talk:Spring Brook (Lackawanna River tributary)
(Redirected from Talk:Spring Brook (Lackawanna River))
 | A fact from Spring Brook (Lackawanna River tributary) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 May 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | Spring Brook (Lackawanna River tributary) has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 7, 2016. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Spring Brook (Lackawanna River)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Maile66 (talk · contribs) 18:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
Checklinks tool shows dead links for; Citation 1 "Compehensive plan..." Dead since 2016-03-18; Citation 20 "Mosiac Flood Protection" Dead since 2016-06-15
- 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:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Earwig's copyvio tool shows zero chance of violation with most citations, but an 18% chance on Citation 19 the river guide. What that tool picks up is not a copyvio, but a repetition of the common names and terms: Dup detector on that same source. Copyvio tools don't work well on PDF sourcing, of which there are many in this article. I did a spot check of those resources.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- 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:
- 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:
- Only one image is used in the article, the Nebitt Reservoir, and is on Commons as Public Domain. Per Commons Freedom of panorama United States "In the USA, such works do not have a copyright and therefore may be photographed freely, whether or not from a public place."
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Jakec I think the article is fine. You need to take care of the two dead links mentioned above. — Maile (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Maile66: The links weren't on any of the archiving sites, so I found replacements. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- And Ta! Da! Checklinks tool says all are now working. Everything else is good. This passes. — Maile (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Maile66: The links weren't on any of the archiving sites, so I found replacements. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Jakec I think the article is fine. You need to take care of the two dead links mentioned above. — Maile (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
