Talk:Trinity River (California)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 13:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll review this one over the next few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

General

• Images are all fine--some of them are quite beautiful. No licensing issues.
• No edit wars, article is stable.
• No POV problems.

Streamflow

• You could lose the phrase "It is worth noting that" without changing the meaning of the sentence. Same with "Also of note is". Just including these facts in an encyclopedia article testifies to their noteworthiness.

Done Shannon 00:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Native Americans

• It's a little confusing where you say "Their name for the Trinity River was hun' simply meaning "river"." But then in the next sentence "The origin of their name for the Trinity River, Hoopa or Hupa, is uncertain." So, which was the river's name, "hun'" or "Hoopa"?

Fixed. It seemed to be missing a sentence there. Shannon 00:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Post-Gold Rush settlement

• "The Forest Service was criticized for mismanaging timber lands in the area...." Who criticized them?

I added the names of the environmental groups who filed a lawsuit, and a source. Shannon 00:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources

• Are footnotes 20 and 55 the same source? If so, the notes could be combined.

Fixed. Shannon 00:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This is an excellent article and, once these minor issues are resolved, I look forward to promoting it to Good Article. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that's everything. I'll promote this right away. Thanks for writing it, it was a pleasure to read and review. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I really appreciate your help. Shannon 16:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)