Talk:Lake Chillisquaque/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I will take a look and copyedit as I go. Please revert if I accidentally change the meaning. comments below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Lake Chillisquaque has various amounts of metals in its waters. - err, sorta true of all bodies of water I'd have thought. Needs to be more specific.

don't have all capitals in reference/footnote titles.

Can you add any more about the history? was it controversial at all? Dams often are.

• @Casliber: Thanks for reviewing this article. I removed the sentence about Lake Chillisquaque raving various amounts of metals. There wasn't any good way to make it more specific without making it too specific. I've fixed the allcaps in the reference titles. Finally, as far as I know, there aren't any controversies. I'm confident that most of the information available on the lake is already in the article, but I checked again and didn't find anything. --Jakob (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Jakec: ok - sorry, got sidetracked. Will be back to look further soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to be careful when adding material - some parts should be reorganised to make them more coherent - I've just rejigged this bit about birds and fish (check that you are happy with it). I will point out some others. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

All genus names should be in italics and linked - even redlinked is ok.

Make all plants link to scientific names just to make sure they are linking to the right place.

You've added Fishing and boating are permitted on the lake at any time, although boats fuelled by gasoline are forbidden but then in the next sentence stated boating is not allowed for 6 weeks, so it contradicts it somewhat.

The Recreation section should be streamlined into having two paragraphs.

Similarly, the Hydrology section should be 2 or 3 paras - it looks disjointed. Maybe have a look at the sentence order in that.

Any questions about any of this and I can show/help. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Casliber: The genus names have all been linked and italicised, but I'm pretty certain that the plants link to the right places even without scientific names (most of them seem to redirect to their scientific names). The hydrology and recreation sections are now 3 and 2 paragraphs respectively. Maybe that fixes the disjointedness? Finally, the statement that fishing and boating are permitted at any time meant any time of day, not any time of year. I've edited the article to reflect that. --Jakob (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Aaah yes I see. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You've got the dam as 54 ft high and then "12 feet (3.7 m) high at its highest point"..presume you mean dam wall?

I linked Washingtonville...is Strawberry Ridge big enough to warrant an article?

@Casliber: The dam is 12 feet wide at its highest point. I've changed the article to reflect that. As for Strawberry Ridge, it's a populated place, meaning that in theory it's notable, but I am not sure whether there's enough for more than a stub. I wasn't planning on creating an article on it myself. --Jakob (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy to make a stub if there is a reliable source. Not good on US geography like this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There are lots of mentions in this book. Most aren't substantial, but it should be possible to squeeze several sentences out of it. There's also a passing mention here and another one here. There might be a few more similar bits and pieces of info lying around somewhere on the web. It's not much, but it could be enough for a fair-sized stub/low start class article. --Jakob (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Casliber: Anything else? --Jakob (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay - take a look at the microbes section - there is no context provided to help the reader understand the significance of the information there - why is phycocyanin important? Similarly the microbe genera are just names with no indication of what they are and what they do. Mentioning cyanobacteria would be helpful too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Casliber: The sentence about phycocyanin is gone. I think that the wikilinks on the genera should be sufficient explanation, since a sufficiently curious reader could click on one for a detailed description. By the way, some of the microbes listed are types of cyanobacteria, so they are mentioned in a way. --Jakob (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Err, I didn't necessarily mean remove it - I think that as the source is about cyanobacteria, then mentioning them as a group - and why we'd be measuring them here - will help the section flow better and give some context. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Casliber: Sorry I keep forgetting to deal with this. I'll try to get around to fixing it over the weekend. In the meantime, is there anything specific that you wanted me to put in the microbes section? Also, are there any remaining issues that can be fixed by minor tweaking? --Jakob (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Casliber: I added a paragraph to the section. How is it now? --Jakob (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a start - I think it needs a little something. I would add a single sentence about why cyanobacteria are important or what do they do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Casliber: Couldn't anyone follow the link to cyanobacteria if they were sufficiently curious about them, though? By the way, do I need to ping you in the future or is this page on your watchlist? --Jakob (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine now - I have had a look and a think and agree you're right - anything else is better in cyanobacteria article as it would be quite involved. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, one last thing - para 2 in hydrology section is a bit listy - it has a bunch of numbers and I have no idea if they are normal/high/low...what. is there any indication or context that can be added? After that I think we're done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Casliber: I hear you. The source only gives raw data for the lake and not any context, though. I doubt there is a "normal" though--these things likely vary by area and even time of year. This does list some concentrations of metals in rivers, but they are all on separate pages (and there are dozens of them), which would kind of flood the references section with websites irrelevant to the lake itself. --Jakob (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok fair enough - you tried. This is GA not FA so deal-breaker it is not. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: ok, I think we're there. Hope my input was helpful. sorry re delay....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)