Kissena Creek has been listed as one of the
Geography and places good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 2, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Kissena Creek appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 April 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hog Farm ( talk · contribs) 00:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Lead - The historical names are not mentioned elsewhere in the article. If they're important enough to be in the lead, they should also be mentioned elsewhere.
Headwaters - Maybe I'm just thinking about this too much, but you state that the swamp was drained in 1918, except for the 60 sq ft under the barn. However, you point out (with the support of the NYT), that the swamp persisted until the end of the 20th century. Could you clarify this? Does this indicate that the ground remained seasonally inundated, or that the old swampland remained undeveloped and became unsavory at times?
Also, the name of "Doughty's Swamp" does not seem to be supported by either of the sources, unless I missed the mention.
Does "The original alignment between Kissena and Parsons Boulevards remains as the two-block Aguilar Avenue." really need 4 citations?
Fresh Meadows - Is there a specific reason for the sudden change of tense in the middle of the paragraph, only to revert back to the present tense?
Kissena Park - The caption identifies the body of water as "Kissena Pond", this should probably be changed to "Kissena Lake" to maintain consistency of name usage.
"The glacier covered much of Long Island" - What's "the glacier"? Using the word the indicates that a specific glacier is being referred to, but this is the first reference to glaciers in the article.
"One of these recesses became Kissena Lake.[20][21]" - This sentence should be moved after the sentence following it. It makes more sense to discuss the recesses first, then to mention that one of them became Kissena Lake. That whole middle paragraph just feels out of order to me, I'd recommend you look into trying to arrange the content is a way that makes more sense.
Kissena Corridor Park - Kissena Corridor Park is notable, right? If it is, the redlinks should be kept. If not, the wikilinks should be removed.
"The western stretch of Kissena Corridor Park was landfilled in the 1950s from dirt excavated for the construction of the Long Island Expressway." - Are five citations necessary here? This doesn't seem controversial at all, and controversial statements are usually the only ones with that many citations. The Kadinsky reference itself seems sufficient here.
"On June 8, 1959, Moses announced that additional fill" - Who is Moses? This name isn't mentioned before in the article, and I'm assuming that Moses isn't the intended person.
Queens Botanical Garden - "Otherwise, the water empties into the Flushing River which flows north into Flushing Bay" - So this is where the overflow goes, right?
"Lawrence Street / College Point Boulevard" I think the spaces around the / should probably go.
Last paragraph has another switch in tense.
General comments - You don't mention much of the covering over, except for that of the swamp. Hillcrest is also mentioned in the lead, but not in the main body of the article. And lastly, what does the creek do now? You mention that it formerly flowed into Flushing Creek, but don't clearly state what it does now? Is it just the sewer line?
I'll get to the images, references, etc. later, that's it for now. Hog Farm ( talk) 02:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Both images are appropriately tagged.
References
The other refs look good. That's all, pinging nominator. Epicgenius Hog Farm ( talk) 14:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 05:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius ( talk). Self-nominated at 18:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: No issues with the article content as it stands. ALT0 is a bit weird, trying to combine two facts that aren't naturally connected. I find ALT2 to be the most interesting (and AGF on the offline source) and it is properly sourced in the lead. ALT1 is almost as interesting, but I would rather see "until 2000" to really drive the point home. Sounder Bruce 07:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Kissena Creek has been listed as one of the
Geography and places good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 2, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Kissena Creek appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 April 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hog Farm ( talk · contribs) 00:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Lead - The historical names are not mentioned elsewhere in the article. If they're important enough to be in the lead, they should also be mentioned elsewhere.
Headwaters - Maybe I'm just thinking about this too much, but you state that the swamp was drained in 1918, except for the 60 sq ft under the barn. However, you point out (with the support of the NYT), that the swamp persisted until the end of the 20th century. Could you clarify this? Does this indicate that the ground remained seasonally inundated, or that the old swampland remained undeveloped and became unsavory at times?
Also, the name of "Doughty's Swamp" does not seem to be supported by either of the sources, unless I missed the mention.
Does "The original alignment between Kissena and Parsons Boulevards remains as the two-block Aguilar Avenue." really need 4 citations?
Fresh Meadows - Is there a specific reason for the sudden change of tense in the middle of the paragraph, only to revert back to the present tense?
Kissena Park - The caption identifies the body of water as "Kissena Pond", this should probably be changed to "Kissena Lake" to maintain consistency of name usage.
"The glacier covered much of Long Island" - What's "the glacier"? Using the word the indicates that a specific glacier is being referred to, but this is the first reference to glaciers in the article.
"One of these recesses became Kissena Lake.[20][21]" - This sentence should be moved after the sentence following it. It makes more sense to discuss the recesses first, then to mention that one of them became Kissena Lake. That whole middle paragraph just feels out of order to me, I'd recommend you look into trying to arrange the content is a way that makes more sense.
Kissena Corridor Park - Kissena Corridor Park is notable, right? If it is, the redlinks should be kept. If not, the wikilinks should be removed.
"The western stretch of Kissena Corridor Park was landfilled in the 1950s from dirt excavated for the construction of the Long Island Expressway." - Are five citations necessary here? This doesn't seem controversial at all, and controversial statements are usually the only ones with that many citations. The Kadinsky reference itself seems sufficient here.
"On June 8, 1959, Moses announced that additional fill" - Who is Moses? This name isn't mentioned before in the article, and I'm assuming that Moses isn't the intended person.
Queens Botanical Garden - "Otherwise, the water empties into the Flushing River which flows north into Flushing Bay" - So this is where the overflow goes, right?
"Lawrence Street / College Point Boulevard" I think the spaces around the / should probably go.
Last paragraph has another switch in tense.
General comments - You don't mention much of the covering over, except for that of the swamp. Hillcrest is also mentioned in the lead, but not in the main body of the article. And lastly, what does the creek do now? You mention that it formerly flowed into Flushing Creek, but don't clearly state what it does now? Is it just the sewer line?
I'll get to the images, references, etc. later, that's it for now. Hog Farm ( talk) 02:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Both images are appropriately tagged.
References
The other refs look good. That's all, pinging nominator. Epicgenius Hog Farm ( talk) 14:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 05:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius ( talk). Self-nominated at 18:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: No issues with the article content as it stands. ALT0 is a bit weird, trying to combine two facts that aren't naturally connected. I find ALT2 to be the most interesting (and AGF on the offline source) and it is properly sourced in the lead. ALT1 is almost as interesting, but I would rather see "until 2000" to really drive the point home. Sounder Bruce 07:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)