Talk:Auburn Dam/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: NortyNort (Holla) 12:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This article does not meet "quick-fail criteria" and can undergo review.

Initial comments

Hello Shannon, I am pleased to join this review on a dam article. After a first read, I have a few initial comments. I will be in and out of this review the next couple of days looking closely.

• In the template: Construction start is marked as "Never" but a phase of construction did start in 1968 with the cofferdams and diversion tunnels. The article has very nice maps but a reference map in the template would be good to orient a reader as to where in California the project is unless it squeezes the last two paragraphs of section "Early history". Also, a cost in some form whether spent or proposed would be good to add in there.
• In the "Fate" section: In 1992 and 1996 plans for restarting the project resurfaced in various water bills but both were denied. Clarity is needed on how many bills there were or how many were rejected.
• In the "Proposals for resurrecting the Auburn Dam" section: That quote really adds to the article and the section but I am really curious who said it or published as it should be included.
• In the "Legacy" section: Referring to the hundreds of millions spent on the project; that is a lot of money. I am curious if it was spent on studies, etc. An actual number would make it less vague and help gain more confidence in the statement as well. Also, where exactly is the pumping station that was built in 2006? A reference like near or on the site would be best to orient the reader.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing and accuracy issues

• In the Legacy section, the sentence about the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent is cited (#3) to the USBR's "Folsom and Sly Park Units Project" but I can't confirm 'hundreds of millions' spent on the Auburn Dam in there. I know its true but the reference may be misplaced.

• In the Fate section, regarding the USBR listing it as an "unfinished component". After reading the USBR page (cite #10), I got the impression that yes it is listed as an unfinished component. However, I recommend re-wording the sentence to avoid WP:OR (analysis). Simply putting that the USBR states "Alternatives being considered" would suffice. They did do a good "sneaky" job of wording the Facilities Description though. Also, I can't find out where "(likely in anticipation of protest from pro-Auburn Dam groups)" came from in the references. With a direct reference, to seems to me that part of the reason may have been cost. The pumping station, according to your reference here appears to be part of the same restoration project and should be moved to the last paragraph. The station started in 2002 according to ref #17, just FYI.

• In the beginning Fate section, I can't confirm "would inundate countless canyons and rapids" in reference #17. This sounds exaggerated and inaccurate.

• I am curious about the cofferdam, was there just one? Most dam sites have two (downstream and upstream) but some only have one; if the grade of the river is steep enough.
  • Yeah, there was only one; the construction site was graded enough so there would be a steep drop to where the river came out of the tunnel. Shannon^talk _contribs 17:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I enjoy reading this article and and am still reviewing but don't think much is left. I crossed out issues solved from the initial comments above, if you have comments on the others, please discuss. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Final comment

Early history section: "...the city was inundated so totally that the state government was..." I think "totally" with read better if replaced with "severely".

Above is my last comment to add to the outstanding ones. Those aside, I think this is a great article and was well-prepared for GA review. You did an excellent job of balancing the good and bad of the project along with representing its background and history.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I replaced it with "completely"; I think that "totally" sounds better but as it goes. Shannon^talk _contribs 21:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The only comment on the review, which I couldn't verify in the sources was "likely in anticipation of protest from pro-Auburn Dam groups" --NortyNort (Holla) 11:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Commented that out; I think it's pretty reasonable to guess that way, but don't have a reference... Shannon^talk _contribs 00:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is reasonable and the cost of moving material into the tunnel may part of the reason as well. Anyway, I am done reviewing this article and think it now satisfies GA criteria. It is very broad, accurate, well written and balanced for such a controversy. Overall, it wasn't far off to begin with. Good job. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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: