Talk:Creekfinding/GA1
GA Review[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 18:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
- Copyvio check. I reviewed the few matches over 4% on Earwig's Copyvio Detector and had no concerns. Matches are the title and such WP:LIMITED phrases as "published by the University of Minnesota Press", "at the end of the book" and "the illustrations for the book".
- Images: Suitable FUR in place for the cover; other images have CC licenses. Images are relevant; placement and captions are fine. The Osterholm picture could have alt text added; alt text for the other images is OK.
Background and publication
- You could wikilink epidemiologist. (I'm not sure if there's a suitable way to resphrase to opening to avoid MOS:SEAOFBLUE, though.)
- I thought about this for a bit and removed "the American epidemiologist" from the lead, and then in the first section of this Background section, I rephrased it as: "In 2002, Michael Osterholm purchased 98 acres (0.40 km2) of land near Dorchester, Iowa. Osterholm, an epidemiologist, was told..." DanCherek (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Optionally, you could wikilink acres.
- "Although authors and illustrators of picture books often work separately," - I didn't see explicit support for this in the source cited.
Synopsis
- Seems a fair summary, from what I see in sources.
Writing and illustrations
- Seems fine.
Reception
- thinking about NPOV, I had a look in NewsBank and while there are quite a few reviews/mentions in local US papers, none of them seem anything other than positive. I didn't spot any that seemed like real omissions from the set of reviews summarised here. (No action or reply needed on this.)
- "received particular applause from critics" - while I wouldn't have commented on "was applauded by critics", "received ... applause" seems a bit too literal. But if it's not uncommon in American English than it's fine to keep the current wording.
Sources/References
- Spot checks on Kilen (2017), Giorgio (2017), and Auerbach (2017) - no issues identified except anything noted above.
Infobox and lead
- Quite a short lead, but I don't think there are any glaring omissions. I guess that the New York Public Library and Riverby Awards may not be big enough deals to be mentioned.
- The lead could perhaps be reworked to make it clearer that both the real and fictional creeks were restored and saw wildlife flourish.
Thanks for your work on the article, DanCherek. Feel free to challenge any of my comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review! I am working on these now... DanCherek (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Alright BennyOnTheLoose, sorry for the delay and thanks again for the review. I've made changes to the article in response to your helpful suggestions above. DanCherek (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, DanCherek. I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so am passing it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.