Talk:Wildcat Creek (Lackawanna River tributary)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Georgejdorner (talk · contribs) 06:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Indeed they are. However, the History/rec section is a confusing chronological jumble. Serious sentence shuffling is indicated.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The norm for WP articles is first the History section, then whatever. I cannot recall ever seeing History relegated to the fifth spot. Otherwise OK.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	In elegant style.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	With the exception of two news articles, sources are of governmental and academic origin.
	2c. it contains no original research.	With the exception of two news articles, sources are of governmental and academic origin.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	With the exception of two news articles, sources are of governmental and academic origin. Public documents cannot be plagiarized.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Excellent lead. An explanation-if available-of the hydrology datum would be helpful.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	What can be controversial about a creek?
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No images. An article about a geographic feature cries out for a map.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No images. An article about a geographic feature cries out for a map.
	7. Overall assessment.	HOLD for corrections. Further commentary: This is an awesome example of digging into the dross of government documents and spinning some gold. Good work! The problems I wrote above should not be too difficult to address. As the template doesn't seem to offer a comment option, please reply below.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)