Talk:Bee Branch Creek/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Etrius ( Us) 06:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 00:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's review this as token Iowa native. I've seen the peer review, which is rather short, there are a few issues that don't appear to have been resolved but I'll rehash them here since there's only 3 items listed. Please clean up the clarification needed templates.

Copy-vios

Earwig only flags proper nouns
I will continue to make random checks, I'll note anything else I find.

Sources

There are a handful of sources that are databases that have to be searched up. Please add a 'type' category with what you searched to the ref.

*what makes '"Let's Go! Dubuque Activities Guide: Summer 2022". issuu.com. p. 41. Retrieved 2022-11-26.' relable? it appears to be promotional Totally got rid of it. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 13:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.traillink.com/trail/bee-branch-trail/ appears to be a WP:PRIMARY source

Regarding the primary source. If that source is an issue, is the city a huge primary violation?

So, I am understanding that some primary sources are necessary. I'd argue that the city of Dubuque's website wouldn't technically qualify, though its a very minimal distinction. The difference here is that on my first glance, the page appeared to be advertising something. I see that the info used is rather minor, a factually grounded, so it can stay in for now. Etrius ( Us) 03:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A further comment, I did a few searches and found trail link has been previously used on any multiple other articles, it is fine. Etrius ( Us) 03:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a manual check of the sources, all are live.

Images

Can I get a linked source for File:Bee Branch Watershed Map.jpg? I can't confirm the current copyright.

I found the source but I don't see any copyright info

same with File:Bee Branch Play Area with Slides.jpg

Regarding images and if they violate copyright. I had a whole ordeal with Kristin Hill (The city's Bee Branch Manager) where she said that as long as the city was fully attributed, it would be fine.

So, there's a process for that, see [1] for how to go about this. I cannot confirm that this correspondence occurred and uploading to commons is releasing the image to the wider public and relinquishing copyright. Etrius ( Us) 03:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source of the images: [2]

Prose

Lead

MOS:LEAD, Lead needs to be expanded significantly

Should the article mention that Bee Branch is a shortening? ✶Mitch 199811✶ 14:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

Prose needs to be varied. I get that writing style is a very weak criteria but reading one fact sentences can get dense very fast and interfere with the flow of the article. I get this is a very nebulous suggestion so feel free to ask for clarification.

History

~~collapse the first set of sentences into a single paragraph, place this under an 'early history' subsection~~
~~By the mid 20th century, the creek was seen as insignificant. couldn't find any mention in the source~~

On page 23, near the bottom of the paragraph it says "and by the insignificant southeastward-flowing Couler Creek" when talking about drainage. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 01:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for double checking, I figured I just missed it Etrius ( Us) 03:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FN 4 is extremely under utilized

Could you tell me what FN 4 is?

Footnote # 4 or source #4, its just shorthand Etrius ( Us) 03:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll use more information on it but I would like to note that it has already been used 9 times. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 13:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~The years 1999... clean up the chronology~~

Could you explain what you mean by fix chronology?

This paragraph references a half dozen or so floods but then jumps back to the first flood and its immediate impacts. Etrius ( Us) 03:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the "The first storm..." to 1999. Then said "that storm and... (all the rest)." ✶Mitch 199811✶ 13:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~The more open creek reword~~

Done, may want to review. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 13:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~2000s decade 'decade' is redundant~~

Removed decade and changed they to the city.

The project did receive backlash expand

The source I was reading said backlash but I couldn't find anything else other than a documentary by PBS that said people were worried about it being ugly. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 13:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The storm sewer was also expanded.. grammar, there are too many commas with too many ideas. Needs a contraction at least

I split it up but you may want to review it. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 13:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Overall it has prevented $11.6 million in damages. Idea should be moved further down. It reads weird to have an 'outcome' in the middle of the history. Conversely, you could clarify that this was an estimate in 2017.

Done ✶Mitch 199811✶ 13:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*By October 2021, the city had finished building culverts and a walkway under the Canadian Pacific Railway. Idea needs to be linked to the creek itself

Even after this declaration of completion... grammar, incomplete sentence

*They were unable Who?

The Bee Branch has influenced many things. Whole paragraph is trivial and promotional. Why was it covered in the Atlantic, what makes this notable? The Blacksnake Combined Sewer Overflow is just a one sentence blurb and very much trivial. You can mention these things but an entire paragraph isn't warranted, nor is the current wording ideal. I guess an 'influence/outcome' section could be warranted as well but that would require some reworking of the page.

Brought this and the total cost saved into a new outcome section. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 13:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~'estimated value ' estimated value or estimated cost?~~

Cost. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 13:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

The creek originates in the suburbia rather trivial, not a big fan of the OpenStreetMap source

The crossings should probably be removed as the only citation I could really use is OSM or google maps. For the other OSM citation can I replace that with the USGS map that was used to cite length. The USGS map is incomplete and semi-outdated so I wouldn't be able to get crossings there.

I have a bigger concern that the information gained from this citation is rather minimal. I don't like the source usage and would love something better but there isn't anything technically wrong with it. Etrius ( Us)

I have had it specify that it starts past Eisenhower Elementary. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 14:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

some detention basins deeper in town clarify

I said the Carter and 32nd street detention basin, you may need to review. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 13:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~'Meanwhile the creek' missing a comma~~
The Bee Branch Watershed Project aimed to remedy it by converting alleyways into permeable sections. The conversion is expected to cost $9.5 million and be completed in December 2033. why is this in the geography section and not history.
~~The order of the crossings is: source is missing~~

The crossings should probably be removed as the only citation I could really use is OSM or google maps. For the other OSM citation can I replace that with the USGS map that was used to cite length. The USGS map is incomplete and semi-outdated so I wouldn't be able to get crossings there. (Copied down as it also relates to here. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 13:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My personal thinking is that it really isn't notable info to begin with. Etrius ( Us) 05:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bee Branch Creek Greenway

~~This entire paragraph is difficult to read. Needs to be redone. Why isn't this in the environment section, since it includes all the other extraneous, associated locations~~

Also, can you elaborate why the Greenway would go in environment as I (tried to anyways) designed it to talk about the ecosystem? ✶Mitch 199811✶ 01:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it fit in geography better. It is a very small paragraph with not much information and reads as though its arbitrarily separated from the rest of the page. I don't see how an entire section is warranted. Unless, of course, you can expand it. Etrius ( Us) 03:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Environment

~~'game fish like the' change to- game fish including:~~
ecosystem a success what does this mean?

I changed it to healthy, but the source says success for the project so should I keep it as healthy or add on that to the project. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 13:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~14 floating islands between, clarify these are in the creek~~
Due to having native plants, the islands will not have to be removed during winter why?

Not said why to my knowledge. It is a 15 minute video so I could've missed it. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 13:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

Page is stable
~~Don't link a disambig page. I don't see the benefit of 'Other things called Bee Branch'~~

The layout of the page is a nightmare. There is also a number of places where clarification are needed. I'll leave this open since I can see its your first nom and I know how stressful these things can be. I'd rather give you the opportunity to improve this than just outright fail it. Please reach out if you have any questions. Page will be on hold till 12/28. Etrius ( Us) 00:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I might have more questions however this is what I could think of. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 01:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitch199811: Going forward, please add your comments underneath my suggestions, it makes figuring out what you're asking much simpler (I moved everything around, just an FYI). Also, used a

Done, ~~strikethrough~~ or some other means to indicate when an issue has been resolved. GA reviews are a back and forth between nominator and reviewer, especially regarding the sources, I am asking for clarification since I am not as well informed on this subject as you are. I understand you're new to this so I'll try to avoid too many colloquialisms. Etrius ( Us) 03:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the lead, etymology, and BBCG, can you get anymore specific than it's hard to read. I'll probably read the MoS for lead so you may not need it there. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 14:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitch199811 Sure!! For the lead, per MOS:LEAD the lead should be a rough summary of the information below. I don't expect every detail but sufficient information should be provided, the Manual of Style will go more in depth than I can. For simplicity's sake, just combine the first two sentences in the etymology section and that'll be good enough. I also see you cut the confusing portion of the BBCG, the current version will suffice. Etrius ( Us) 03:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh darn promotion book, screwing up my whole train of thought. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 03:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another, semi general topic, for history in the 1800s, should Couler Creek be used? ✶Mitch 199811✶ 03:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any other articles on it. As long as you keep it tied to the Bee Branch Creek then you have my blessing. Etrius ( Us) 03:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Etriusus Can you go through the article to make sure I didn't create issues by fixing the listed ones and make sure there are no other massive holes? ✶Mitch 199811✶ 18:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass

Image issues still need to be cleaned up. I've linked the process above.
Likewise, the lead still needs to be expanded. MOS:LEAD dictates that the lead should be a rough summary. I'm not expecting 3 paragraphs of content, 2 should be more than enough. Read MOS:INTRO for more info.
Source #28 has a link error in the Name of the website, linking the Wikipedia page of Dubuque and not 'http://www.cityofdubuque.org.' Honestly, just cut the link, since all other mentions are not linked.
The city considers the creek important due to flooding... sentence is confusingly worded
Flooding in 1999... This sentence renders the previous sentence almost entirely redundant. This sentence works as a good summary of the impetus to form the creek.
save millions of dollars in damages reword to prevent millions of dollars
'Couler Valley' link again here
'Couler Creek' add '(also known as Couler Creek)' to the lead, that page treats them synonymous
' move the course' change to 'alter the course'
opinion was swayed into making the change Idea does not follow, what opinion was it that changed?
'1885 saw ' I'll caution you to not start sentences with a year, I believe its a MOS issue but I'll look for that actual policy.
The city got its way as the franchise was up for renewal reword
An ordinance was made was finalized... sentence needs to be redone for grammatical and clarity purposes
'allow for the north ' clarify
research an engineering project reword sentence
storms of that size what size?
Throughout the 2000s... why the sudden shift in dating method, keep it consistent
and more. cut
In 2010, the Lower Bee Branch Restoration was started and it ended by June 2015 This is a bigger issue with the paragraph. There is no explanation of what the restoration project was. I assume the statements later on about expansion is the restoration project but the use of 'also' implies these were separate events. The paragraph as a whole may need to be reshuffled to properly explain the topic.
as the finishing the restoration project grammar
a $3 million project to make a new drainage sewer to replace the temporary siphon sewer reword, reads like an incomplete sentence
Overall it has prevented what has prevented?
The Atlantic covered an article on it... The entire paragraph still does not adequately address why this information meets WP:NOTE. Why was it mentioned? What did it inspire?
Also, it was used to resist the Blacksnake Combined Sewer Overflow. Protesters used the Bee Branch as what the Blacksnake Creek could become. However, supporters said Blacksnake Creek was very different These sentences are confusing to read, reword
'Funding and expenses' subsection is unnecessary. I would recommend taking this information and placing it at the end of Bee Branch Watershed Project
' geography of the north end' north end of what?
Make sure to establish the acronym 'CPR' sooner in parenthesis, it took a bit to realize it was the Canadian Pacific Railway
'asphalt or concrete' reword to 'asphalt and concrete'.
' creek is expected' passive voice, make it active
The DNR considered the ecosystem healthy considering the newness of the stream doesn't make sense
The islands have multiple layers .. grammar and general rewording
Due to having native plants, and The plants anchoring the islands condense sentences
Gavilon Grain spill can be expanded significantly, there are a number of sources on the topic.
Per MOS:SEEALSO, a blurb is only necessary when the relevance isn't immediately apparent, It's a minor nitpick so I'll leave this up to you.

The page is suffering from a lack of specificity, I like to call it the pronoun game (e.g. 'It was a big park' vs 'Scottsdale park is big'). Something that is difficult to do on Wikipedia is that you, the editor, clearly understand the topic but sometimes that clarity is lost when writing the page. I'm not demanding that 0 pronouns be used, but more specificity/clarity is necessary for the uninformed reader. I, as a semi-informed reader, had to go back and forth multiple times to understand what was written.

Additionally, a lot of the prose uses repetitive wording that makes the page awkward to read, and, frankly, some of the prose is confusing to the point of incomprehensibility. I cleaned up some of it and flagged most of it. I will take this time to fail the page, unfortunately, the prose needs time to mature and clean itself up. The large number of errors introduced on the rework (and the fact that the image issues haven't been addressed) makes me worry that this will turn into a Futile cycle of new issues and secondary reviews. This isn't meant to scare you off from GA, and I applaud the tenacity. Take this time to work on the article, and I hope to see it back at WP:GA soon. Ping me or send a talk page message if you have any questions or if you want me to pick this back up at a later date. Etrius ( Us) 06:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.