Talk:Lincolnshire, Illinois/GA2

GA Review

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Initial review

Article is "readable" and appears to pitched at the right level. I've added some more wikilinks so that I understood the article a bit better. Now its just the references / in-line citations to check out and possibly a couple, or so, of questions to sort out.Pyrotec (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool. It's good to know that the article's doing well.

Is there anything I can do to help out? --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 02:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

GAR

The article appears to be on the right track for GA. But a few questions first:

• Is there a reference for the first Potawatomi inhabitants, or is that covered by ref 2?  Done Yes, it is covered by ref 2; I clarified this. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 21:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Similarly, is there a reference for them dominating the region by 1768, or is that covered by ref 2?  Done per same reasons above. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 21:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• The date of arrival of the two Jesuit explorers needs to be added.

Comment That might be a problem; I borrowed the book and have already returned it to its owner, so it might take a little while to retrieve said information. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 21:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done I used a BBC source on another Lake County, Illinois city, which documented their arrival in Lake County. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 18:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• It is not all that clear what the sentence attached to ref 24 is intended to say. The paragraph starts off about trees, then gipsy months, then gipsy moth eradication, then two rivers, then finally mentions Des Plaines River. Presumably it is intended to say that the two rivers, or just one river, partially cause the moths; alternatively it could be "read" that the Des Plaines River is partly responsible for two watersheds. Which is it?  Done The latter deduction is the correct one. I clarified this as well by putting it into another paragraph, if it helps. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 21:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• From a WP:verify perspective, refs 21 & 22 provide verification about trees; ref 23 provides information about the moths and ref 24 is a watershed map. So, if it is intended to say that the Des Plaines River is partly responsible for moths, then there is no verification.  Not done Per reasons mentioned above. Gypsy moths spend their lives around trees, to tell the truth. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 21:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Ref 26 comes up with a precipitation figure of 41.93, but no units (I assume it is days), but the article states 110 days.

Comment The reference states the number of centimeters, from what I presume (I added the figures by centimeters in the data table and it came up roughly the same); I took the data from the very top. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 21:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference I was talking about was this one [1] which has now become Ref 27. It gives average precipitation per month which adds up to the figure in the last column (41.93), but no units are given. This ref therefore fails the WP:verify test. Pyrotec (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Once these have been resolved, its probably OK for a GA.Pyrotec (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

One more question. The lead says: "It is also maintained by a public works system that encompasses complimentary public services and storm drain networks". Does complimentary mean free, as in free to residents? Don't you pay local taxes in the USA, if so the cost comes out of your pockets anyway? (I don't live in the US, if the question seems odd).Pyrotec (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hah, yeah, technically it is the truth; taxpayers' money pays for all "complimentary" services. I'll reword that. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 21:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

GA

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A good readable article

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm awarding GA status. One ref for precipitation appears to be unsuitable for the purposes of verification, but this is a trivial part of the overall article.