Talk:Fossil Creek/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gilderien (talk · contribs) 20:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images are good, no dead links, all citations seem sufficient. However:

Article contradicts itself - the length given in the infobox and the length implied from the river miles to source are different. (17 vs. 14). This is partly explained by the first bit being intermittent, but this is listed as the first 5 km not 3?

I tried to clarify this by adding an explanation to citation 5, the topo map, and using it plus citation 4 in the geobox as support for the 17-mile claim. The reporter whose news story I had used to support the 17-mile claim originally has the correct length but explains it incorrectly. He mistakenly says that the perennial part of the stream below the springs is 17 miles long; it's only 14 miles. The other 3 miles is my estimate based on measuring the intermittent stretch of the creek as it appears on the cited topo map. My method is a bit clumsy, but I don't think anyone will raise serious objections to the 17-mile claim. Finetooth (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm so the reporter does say the whole thing is 17 miles? Technically it would be WP:SYNTH if they didn't, but if you examined the map and found the upper section was about 3 miles I think it is reasonable to assume that was what their mistake was.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I worry some about using a ruler and map scale to suss out the upper lengths of little streams. I agree that it verges on a SYNTH violation, though I think it could only be a very minor one. I like putting something as close to the actual length from source to mouth as possible. The source and mouth are established by coordinates given by the United States Geological Survey, a reliable source. If you have remaining doubts, I could change the length to say "14 miles (perennial flow)". I think that would be fine.

Finetooth (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the template won't support it, and it's not that big a deal anyway. I think we can leave it, it is understandable from the article.-Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the course section, there is no mention of where it enters "Fossil Creek Canyon", which is mentioned lower down, nor how it loses over 700 metres in altitude from the rim. Is there a waterfall or a series of previous canyons?

I added mention of the canyon in the appropriate place in the course description. None of the sources mentions a waterfall, and the smaller declivities through which the intermittent flows pass have no names on the topo map. Most of the stream flow originates at the springs. Finetooth (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of "Course" requires another reference, even if just a repeat of 8.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are required for the mentions of "nineteenth century observers" and especially people living in the area "10,000 years ago".

Done. Verified correct sources for inline citations. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for the closing of the power plants in 2008, as well as the whole Fauna and Flora section and the first paragrapg of recreation, which only have one per paragraph.

I corrected the sequence in the power-plant paragraph and added a citation. The invasive species were removed in 2004, the plants closed in 2005, and the dam breached in 2008. Finetooth (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cited sources for these flora, fauna, and recreation paragraphs cover all the claims in these paragraphs. To make that more clear, I inserted more instances of the citations. Finetooth (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, FT. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also the "plan due in 2012" at the end needs updating regarding present status.

Done. Corrected this earlier. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would add to what AB has said that it's not especially surprising that the Forest Service would miss the stated deadline. I checked the relevant Forest Service page just now, and it is still directing people to the PDF file I cited in the article. We'll have to check again from time to time to see what the Forest Service has done and then update the article accordingly. Finetooth (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gilderien, for taking the time to conduct a review. Congrats, FT! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]