Talk:Creekfinding

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Creekfinding was written after its author read an article about the epidemiologist Michael Osterholm and his efforts to restore a creek that had been diverted decades earlier? Source: "Martin said she learned of his efforts when reading a Gazette article back in 2011 and knew right away that she wanted to tell the story." [1] "He found USDA aerial photos of the land prior to 1949, when spring water was diverted to a ditch along the road so the farmer could plant corn." [2]
  • Reviewed: Everything We Need

Moved to mainspace by DanCherek (talk). Self-nominated at 20:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC).

@DanCherek:, "synopsis" section does not cite sources. Dr Salvus 13:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Added citations to Booklist and the work itself (which should be fine per MOS:PLOTSOURCE). Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @DanCherek:, promoted. If you want please review, Federico Gatti and Fabio Miretti. Dr Salvus 14:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek and Dr Salvus: The hook is a little convoluted and I think it can be phrased more effectively. Suggesting some alts below:

• ALT1: ... that Creekfinding was inspired by epidemiologist Michael Osterholm's efforts to restore a creek that had been diverted decades earlier?

Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a great improvement, thanks. (I think that while writing the original, I was trying a little too hard to avoid the "X book is about Y" kind of hook, but I think your proposed one avoids that issue.) DanCherek (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to boldly readd the tick, since ALT1 is just a trimmed version of ALT0. Z1720 (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Creekfinding/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 18:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

• Copyvio check. I reviewed the few matches over 4% on Earwig's Copyvio Detector and had no concerns. Matches are the title and such WP:LIMITED phrases as "published by the University of Minnesota Press", "at the end of the book" and "the illustrations for the book".
• Images: Suitable FUR in place for the cover; other images have CC licenses. Images are relevant; placement and captions are fine. The Osterholm picture could have alt text added; alt text for the other images is OK.

  Added alt text. DanCherek (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Background and publication

• You could wikilink epidemiologist. (I'm not sure if there's a suitable way to resphrase to opening to avoid MOS:SEAOFBLUE, though.)

  I thought about this for a bit and removed "the American epidemiologist" from the lead, and then in the first section of this Background section, I rephrased it as: "In 2002, Michael Osterholm purchased 98 acres (0.40 km²) of land near Dorchester, Iowa. Osterholm, an epidemiologist, was told..." DanCherek (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Optionally, you could wikilink acres.

  Done. DanCherek (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• "Although authors and illustrators of picture books often work separately," - I didn't see explicit support for this in the source cited.

  Modified this one to quote McGehee from that source with attribution: According to McGehee, while "traditionally author and illustrator don't connect during the creation of a picture book," the two collaborated... DanCherek (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Synopsis

• Seems a fair summary, from what I see in sources.

Writing and illustrations

• Seems fine.

Reception

• thinking about NPOV, I had a look in NewsBank and while there are quite a few reviews/mentions in local US papers, none of them seem anything other than positive. I didn't spot any that seemed like real omissions from the set of reviews summarised here. (No action or reply needed on this.)
• "received particular applause from critics" - while I wouldn't have commented on "was applauded by critics", "received ... applause" seems a bit too literal. But if it's not uncommon in American English than it's fine to keep the current wording.

  Yeah, I can see how that sounds weird. Reworded to "Reviewers also wrote positively about McGehee's scratchboard illustrations." DanCherek (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources/References

• Spot checks on Kilen (2017), Giorgio (2017), and Auerbach (2017) - no issues identified except anything noted above.

Infobox and lead

• Quite a short lead, but I don't think there are any glaring omissions. I guess that the New York Public Library and Riverby Awards may not be big enough deals to be mentioned.

  Added the Riverby Award to the lead, just for a little more comprehensiveness. DanCherek (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• The lead could perhaps be reworked to make it clearer that both the real and fictional creeks were restored and saw wildlife flourish.

  Modified the lead a bit to try to accommodate this, let me know what you think. DanCherek (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article, DanCherek. Feel free to challenge any of my comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I am working on these now... DanCherek (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

My power is out due to Hurricane Ian, so will resume after it’s restored later today... DanCherek (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright BennyOnTheLoose, sorry for the delay and thanks again for the review. I've made changes to the article in response to your helpful suggestions above. DanCherek (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, DanCherek. I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so am passing it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

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.