Talk:Sulphur Creek (California)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

#:: Lead: Prehistorically, Sulphur Creek flowed south towards the Salt Creek drainage basin, but was blocked by the hills' uplift and turns north instead to join Aliso Creek. mixture of tense, poor grammar, could be rephrased less clumsily. (done)

1. Historically, being south of Aliso Creek, the Sulphur Creek watershed was part of the territory of the semi-nomadic Acjachemen Indian group, which was conquered by and renamed the Juaneño by Spanish conquistadors in the 17th and 18th centuries. who is better than which here. (clarify?)

   As increasing urban runoff poured into the creek, it became effluent-dominant, meaning that it now receives a perennial flow from runoff from drains very clumsy phrasing. (done)

   Course: After flowing through two more culverts, the creek enters a wider storm channel for a short stint, then after passing through two more culverts, the channel vanishes entirely. repetitive phrasing (done)

   At the third of these four culverts, the creek enters what is known as Sulphur Creek Park, better as just enters Sulphur Creek Park (done)

   At the lake, another small tributary (J03P04), What is (J03P04)? (done)

   Frankly the prose is poor in many places. I suggest that you enlist the help of someone else, perhaps through the WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors or WP:WikiProject California to help copy-edit the article thoroughly.

   I have made minor copy-edits throughout. I believe that the prose can just satisfy the Reasonably good criteria but I recommend thorough copy-editing if you wish to take this further.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   ref #24 is a dead link; can you show that ref #29 is a WP:RS; ref #14 doesn't show the creek at all so what is the point of it; ref #23 looks like OR

   (Ref 24 works on my computer, ref 29 removed, ref 14 just to prove a point made in the article, 23 deadlinked, can't find the original thing even on the Internet Archive so just removing the damn info that goes with it)

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, this has all the makings of a good article but the points raised above need attention. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   I am happy that the article now satisfies the criteria but the prose could certainly be improved throughout. Pass as GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will keep working on it. Shannon^talk _contribs 17:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)