Talk:Otsego Lake (New York)/GA1

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Stedil in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Stedil (talk · contribs) 03:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply


Greetings! Review will be coming soon. I will copy-edit as I read, with points that need addressing written below. Stedil (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2021 (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

Lead

edit

Geography

edit

Sunken Islands

edit

Bays and Points

edit

History

edit

Natural History

edit

Human History

edit
  • The link in this reference, "MacDougall, Hugh Cooke (1989). "Council Rock Park". Cooper's Otsego County" redirects to the cooper's society homepage. It needs to link directly to the book, if it's hosted at the Cooper society webpage.
  • paragraph beginning "the first steamboat on Otsego Lake" has text close paraphrased from the Biological Field Station ref. Rewrite required.
    • Should be fixed now.
  • "to develop their water quality agendas." This is vague and copied from the BFS ref. Rephrase.
  • "It encompasses the physical and social sphere of the lake." What does this mean?

More to come. Stedil (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Stedil: Ok ready when you are. -420Traveler (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for the delay. I can be a bit of a slow reviewer due to a busy schedule, but I'll be continuing this review soon. Stedil (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Geology

edit
  • The ref for the first sentence is a dead link. Archive or replace, if possible.
  Fixed -420Traveler (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • The 2nd paragraph is close paraphrased, and in places directly copied, from the ref at the end of the paragraph.
@Stedil: should be fixed now. -420Traveler (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • The first sentence from the 3rd paragraph is close paraphrased, and copies the technical language "chemically eutrophic and morphometrically oligotrophic."
@Stedil: should be fixed now?, I cant remove the words "chemically" or "morphometrically" because they are important in describing this. -420Traveler (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • I think it would be beneficial if the 3rd paragraph didn't copy the sentence structure of the reference. What I mean is that the same ideas are presented in the same order as in the reference (the 3rd full paragraph in the reference). This can constitute a type of close paraphrasing, even if the word choice is different. From WP:Close paraphrasing#Avoiding: "Don't paraphrase information in the same order it was presented from the source." Try to distill that paragraph down to its main idea; what is the purpose of that paragraph? What is it trying to say about the geology of the lake? Stedil (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Stedil: pretty sure I fixed this, let me know -420Traveler (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Watershed/Conservation and Management

edit
  • I've placed a dead link tag on the last ref of the first paragraph of the Watershed section. Archive or replace, if possible.
@Stedil: I think it is working now -420Traveler (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
It was still dead, but I found a replacement using info from the reference. Stedil (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • The first three sentences of Conservation and Management are close paraphrased. Once again, the sentence structure and order are copied. Changing certain words to synonyms is not enough to avoid close paraphrasing.
  • I decided to fix the sentence starting "in 1935" to show an example of how to fix the issue of sentence structure duplication and copying of technical terms. Use this example as a guide to help fix the rest of this paragraph, in which most of the sentences have close paraphrasing issues. Stedil (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks -420Traveler (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • The first reference in the "invasive species" section is dead. I've placed a dead link tag.
  Fixed -420Traveler (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • noting also that the "pollution" section has the same issues with mirroring the sentence structure and organization as its sources, as mentioned above. I was unable to check most of the "invasive species" section due to the dead link. Stedil (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
I tried to fix this, let me know if its ok. -420Traveler (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Recreation

edit
  • "Since the disappearance of alewife" Is there any more information about this? When and why did they disappear? Why did their disappearance establish a more "balanced ecosystem?"
Added some info, cant find why they disappeared. -420Traveler (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
  Fixed -420Traveler (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've finished my initial review of the article. For the "Appearances in Literature" section, the prose is sufficient for GA, though it is a bit repetitive. If you're interested in making the prose in this section closer to FA quality, I would suggest eliminating the formulaic "(place) is the location," and "in the novel (name of novel)" phrases. Diversifying the sentence structure, or condensing these ideas into a 1-2 sentence summary might help. Let me know when you've completed all the action items above. I'll read through the article again once everything is addressed to make sure no new issues arose. Again, apologies for the delay. I'll see if I can get this wrapped up soon, pending your changes! Stedil (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Stedil & 420Traveler, what is the status of this review? --Usernameunique (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Usernameunique Almost done. Will finish within a few days. -420Traveler (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
420Traveler, checking in—it's now been a few weeks. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Usernameunique will get to it in next couple days. Would have got it done way sooner but the reviewer took a long time to review and plus I work a real job. -420Traveler (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Let me know when you're finished. All changes look good so far. Stedil (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

420Traveler has addressed all issues, and the article now passes all GA criteria. Thanks for your work on expanding and improving this article. Stedil (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply