![]() | Grassy Island Creek was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 5, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that at one point,
Grassy Island Creek lost all of its base flow to deep mines, except during storm events? |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Grassy Island Creek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Stedil ( talk · contribs) 04:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, looks like the Lackawanna tributary articles you have nominated have managed to make their way all the way to the top of the backlog, so I'll review the first one.
Stedil (
talk)
04:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Review progress and general thoughts will be updated in the table. Specific points to address are written below the table. Stedil ( talk) 20:04, 17 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. | Some technical language due to copying too closely from the scientific source material. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Layout is a little scattered. Sections don't logically follow each other. |
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. | some layout fixes regarding citing the specific page in each inline citation. Some dead links that can be fixed. |
![]() |
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). | All sources are reliable. All information is attributed adequately, outside of formatting issues (see 2a) |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | All info is cited. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | see 1a. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | hasn't been edited much since 2015. Some small updates to history section may be needed for recent events. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Stays on topic. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Not a particularly controversial topic, other than wastewater section, which represented multiple view points neutrally. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | not a high-traffic or controversial subject. |
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. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | It would be useful to the article to upload/insert an image of the creek, if available. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | A few issues to address, but nothing major. Update: due to lack of response, article has failed. Unfortunately, this article is not quite GA standard as it stands now, so revisions are necessary before renomination. |
That's it. I'll put it on hold for now. Let me know when you're finished. Stedil ( talk) 20:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Jakob Coles: It has now been one week since the review was completed. I see you haven't made any contributions since the review opened, so I'll give you another week to respond. Let me know if you're working on it. Stedil ( talk) 03:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Grassy Island Creek was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 5, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that at one point,
Grassy Island Creek lost all of its base flow to deep mines, except during storm events? |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Grassy Island Creek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Stedil ( talk · contribs) 04:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, looks like the Lackawanna tributary articles you have nominated have managed to make their way all the way to the top of the backlog, so I'll review the first one.
Stedil (
talk)
04:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Review progress and general thoughts will be updated in the table. Specific points to address are written below the table. Stedil ( talk) 20:04, 17 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. | Some technical language due to copying too closely from the scientific source material. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Layout is a little scattered. Sections don't logically follow each other. |
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. | some layout fixes regarding citing the specific page in each inline citation. Some dead links that can be fixed. |
![]() |
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). | All sources are reliable. All information is attributed adequately, outside of formatting issues (see 2a) |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | All info is cited. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | see 1a. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | hasn't been edited much since 2015. Some small updates to history section may be needed for recent events. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Stays on topic. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Not a particularly controversial topic, other than wastewater section, which represented multiple view points neutrally. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | not a high-traffic or controversial subject. |
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. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | It would be useful to the article to upload/insert an image of the creek, if available. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | A few issues to address, but nothing major. Update: due to lack of response, article has failed. Unfortunately, this article is not quite GA standard as it stands now, so revisions are necessary before renomination. |
That's it. I'll put it on hold for now. Let me know when you're finished. Stedil ( talk) 20:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Jakob Coles: It has now been one week since the review was completed. I see you haven't made any contributions since the review opened, so I'll give you another week to respond. Let me know if you're working on it. Stedil ( talk) 03:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)