Talk:Sonoma Creek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Sonoma Creek was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 14, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
Did You Know
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Rivers (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Assessment[edit]

Importance is rated high because of the large numbers of rare and endangered species in the watershed; the fact that this creek (really a river) drains one of the two most important Wine Country valleys and hence has national and international recognition. Anlace 04:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

GA review notes[edit]

The article still seems to need some work to reach GA. I will consider this GA review on hold for five days pending resolution of the following comments:

  • Compelling prose: redundant links in ==See also== section to body of text; needs more text on restoration efforts in the creek or discussion why no management is occurring; also plans for future research by govt and private agencies.
    • dup links in see also now removed. Anlace 19:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Stability:Pass
  • Sources:Could use some additional sources for the amount of text
  • IMages:Pass
  • Breadth:See comments under prose above to expand text.
  • NPOV:The word "famed" doesnt belong in the intro unless someone is being quoted.
    • done Anlace 19:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for developing this article to its present point, regardless of GA outcome. Annasweden 17:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 14, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: For the mostpart (but by no means all of the article)
2. Factually accurate?: Many dates, facts and figures are unsourced
3. Broad in coverage?: Yes
4. Neutral point of view?: Yes
5. Article stability? Yes
6. Images?: Yes (but infobox and/or diagrams would help)

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Jhamez84 13:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Further to GA nomination, this article fails criteria 1. a), b), c) and 2.c) of WP:WIAGA and would benefit from a few significant entries - the inclusion of an infobox (use{{Infobox_river}} ), and also needs globalising (i.e. not every user, and I'm particularly thinking small childern and the impaired, knows what or where California is!).

Some things would benefit from being made clearer; How long is the stream? Is it (officially defined as) a stream or river? What's its highest and lowest points? Its source?

Per WP:LEAD, the opening section needs to be much more concise/steamlined.

I'd also reiterate the above comment that there needs to be more referencing, particularly for dates, facts and figures; "Recharge for the Sonoma Valley is critical because local rainfall is only about 29 inches (74 centimeters) per annum." needs referencing for example.

Finally, consider visiting Wikipedia:Peer review and posting this article there for high quality feedback.

Hope that helps, Jhamez84 13:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)