Talk:Kootenay River/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 22:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(beginning review)

Lead
This part seems out of sequence to me, as it ends with the Kootenays, which are part of Canada. Seems like the description should follow the river's course.
Names
  • I am left confused over whether you are referring to Canada or the Unitied States. For example, which Native Americans are meant?
  • Too many short paragraphs in this section. The prose does not flow.
  • "Thompson confused the Columbia to be the Kootenay" - not well worded
  • "in Canada, where two-thirds of its length" - going by the map, that doesn't seem to be true.
Course
  • Same complaint about too many short paragraphs.
Watershed
  • Repetition: " Many other tributaries join" followed by "Many other river basins border"
  • "the Bow River and Oldman River take rise." - is that common river terminology?
  • "The underlying rock is generally stable and contains more outcroppings of metamorphic and igneous rock as one progresses westwards." - do you mean "additional outcroppings" or "increasing number of outcroppings?
  • " The glacier that formed Kootenay Lake caused the river to back up into an enormous body of water that stretched all the way to Libby, Montana, near where the Libby Dam now stands, and possibly even connected to Lake Pend Oreille," - so the glacier ... possibly even connected to Lake Pen Oreille?
Geology
  • "heavily connected to the geology of the Columbia, Selkirk and Rocky Mountains" - would "strongly connected" or "deeply connected" be ok? Somehow "heavily connected doesn't sound right.
  • " heavily shaped the peaks and valleys one sees today" - is this the right use of "heavily"?
First inhabitants
  • "The first peoples of the Kootenay River valley were the Ktunaxa people (often referred to as Kootenai) from whom the river's name derives from." - repeat "from". Also, would it be more accurate to say "for whom the river was named"? - since they did not name the river after themselves, others did.
  • "In some written records from the early 19th century, also by the French" have the French been mentioned in this section? Why "also"?
  • Shuswap needs disambiguation
  • What about the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation? Do they have a role?
  • I don't like the way the pullquote messes with the page format. Can you move the pics etc around so that doesn't happen?
Exploration
Doukhobor settlement
  • "eventually brought down the flourishing empire" - is this POV?
  • This section, as interesting as it is, may become slightly off topic.
Ecology
Economy
  • Much over wikilinking.


General comments
  • The prose size of this article is very long "76 kilobytes long". I think some attempt should be made to cut down the size and perhaps spin off daughter article.
  • File:Pacific Northwest River System.png has details that are too small to be of any use.

(I am wearing out, but will add more as necessary.)

Xtzou (Talk) 18:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your comments, I have transferred the blockquote in ‘First inhabitants’ into prose, and cropped the PNW dams map to as to emphasize the Kootenay River basin. Shannontalk contribs 00:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Great! Give me a chance to look at it tomorrow. In general, it is a fine article. Xtzou (Talk) 01:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Final comment
  • I have made some cosmetic changes which I hope you agree with. I also tried to reference the author's name in the footnotes. You are, of course, free to revert anything you don't agree with. (Mostly, I felt the list of parks should be alphabetized and presented as a list. Perhaps a table, but I don't know how to do that.) The references should have more clarification and systematization. It is a fine article from my point of view. Very interesting and thorough. Xtzou (Talk) 19:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality: Clearly written; grammatically correct
    B. MoS compliance: Complies with basic MoS
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources: Reliable sources
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects: Sets the context
    B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic
  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: Pass!

A wonderful article. Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 19:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)