Talk:Sulphur Creek (California)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sulphur Creek (California)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

This seems to be quite a reasonable article, at or about GA-level; so I'll go through it in more detail section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last.Pyrotec (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Course -

• I was unable to verify that in-line 6 states what is claimed in the article.

• The WMP states something like "removal of 3000 feet of concrete channel between Sulphur Creek Park and Crown Valley Parkway". Shannon^{talk SIGN!} 18:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That quotation appears to come from reference 8, not ref 6. I went to this page [1], which is called up by ref 6, and did a search for concrete. The only match for Sulphur Creek was: - "This management measure proposes restoration of Sulphur Creek in the reach beginning just upstream of the water treatment plant to the community center access road along Crown Valley Parkway. This involves the modification of the existing flow control structure at the upstream boundary of the reach, modification of the small basins at the upstream and downstream ends of the reach, restoration of the riparian terraces and stabilization of side slopes, and reestablishment of native riparian vegetation. The measure also proposes to restore riparian habitat in the reach along the Crown Valley Parkway between La Plata Drive and Moulton Parkway. This includes the replacement of the concrete low-flow V-ditch with a natural meandering low flow channel, removal of non-native species, as well as reestablishment of native riparian vegetation." Pyrotec (talk) Pyrotec (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the bit of info I used for the citation. When it mentions "concrete low-flow V ditch" and considering the location it mentions, it is safe to assume there is a concrete channel in that stretch, which is exactly what is stated in the article. Shannon^{talk SIGN!} 01:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Reference 8 is broken - Error 404. (done)  Done Pyrotec (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Will fix. Shannon^{talk SIGN!} 18:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 9 provides coordinates, it does not appear to provide verification of what is claimed in the article. (done, moved it to appropriate spot as it only verifies a place-name) (Removed)  Done
• Ref 10 does not provide verification of what is claimed in the article. (done, added map key to support; "J03P01" is Niguel Storm Drain)  Done
• Ref 11 provides coordinates, it does not appear to provide verification of what is claimed in the article. (Done; that is just for the name of the park; the OC Watersheds site verifies this and google maps seems to say so as well. If I have to, I can remove that from the article as it is not really important, really. Shannon^{talk SIGN!} 01:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• The sentence containing ref 8 discusses two sets of two culverts. The following sentence says "the first of these", presumably this is the third culvert?  Done
• Ref 12 refers to the J03P02 MS4 component, but does not confirm the statement (other than there is a J03P02 MS4 component).
• Ref 13 refers to a multi-page report, but does not provide a page number. (done)  Done 10:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Ref 14 does not provide verification of what is claimed in the sentence. (This is the Narco Channel, shown in the OC Watersheds map. Added the ref there too)  Done
• References 2 & 15 do not appear to provide verification of what is claimed in the sentence. (Both are maps; is referring to maps ok?)
  • Ref 2 does not point directly to the map, it points to an Aliso Creek Watershed and Elevation Ranges and then you have to click to get a map. It would be better to reference the map directly. The link for Ref 15 is google maps for the whole of the North American continent - USA, Mexico and half of Canada; its not even a map of California, or Orange County. You need to set the right scale.Pyrotec (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• How do you do that? Shannon^{talk SIGN!} 01:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Open up the google map link and zoom into where you to want to go. I choose "Orange County, California" and then "Alison Creek"; click on 'link' on the top right hand side and copy and paste the link into wikipedia (I got these [2] [3]). Its also possible to switch between map, Satellite and Terrain views, but you need to change the link. Pyrotec (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)  Done

• Geology -

• Reference 15 does not appear to provide verification of what is claimed in the sentence. (See comment above) Pyrotec (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC) (Ref 15 was simply for extra caution; ref 22 backs it up. Why is the placement of references important if there is another reference that is acceptable?)  Done

• Watershed -

• Reference 22 does not appear to provide verification of what is claimed in the sentence. (Ref 22 is referring to the map on the webpage.)  Done
• Ref 24 refers to a multi-page report, but does not appear toprovide a page number. (done)  Done
• Reference 25 does not appear to provide verification of what is claimed in the sentence.  Done Pyrotec (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Reference 2 does not appear to provide verification of what is claimed in the Sentence. (yes it does, it is the Durham ref)  Done
• Ref 26 refers to a multi-page report, but does not provide a page number. (no, it's the OC Watersheds map, and fixed link too)  Done
• Reference 27 refers to a multi-page report, but does not provide a page number. (done)  Done

• History -

• Ref 28 refers to a multi-page report, but does not provide a page number. (done)  Done Pyrotec (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Ref 29 refers to a multi-page report, but does not provide a page number. (done)  Done
• References 32 & 33 do not appear to provide verification of what is claimed in the sentence. (ref 33's link seems to be awry, it is confusing sand canyon reservoir with sulphur creek reservoir, but I cannot fix that; and ref 32 does, it's the OC Parks history link.)  Done

• Wildlife and flora -

A Good section, appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.

• Variant names -

• I'm not convinced that ref 3 verifies the claim.

• Ref 3 is the GNIS, and it states that explicitly. Shannon^{talk SIGN!} 02:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• WP:lead -

• Quite a good lead.

Overall comment

Quite a good, readable article, that appears to be well referenced. However, from the review carried out so far, I'm not convinced so far that the statements made in the article are fully verified as per WP:Verify. This WP:GAN is therefore on Hold whilst these 'problems' are addressed. Some of these, such as the ues of multi-page reports should be easily addressed by citing page numbers; others, were maps are used, by the selection of appropriate scales and resolutions. Pyrotec (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As nearly a month has gone by, with little progress, I'm going to close down this review; which means marking this article as a "failedGA". Overall, this article is quite close to being a GA, the main problem being lack of WP:verification of some references. I suggest the the article be resubmitted at a future date once these problems have been addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Very busy recently, will address at a future date. Shannon^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 20:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Second GA review

I was considering performing the second GA review requested, but am now hesitant, as I see what appear to be a lot of unresolved issues from the first GA review. If the items listed have been resolved (including the many questions about the verifiability of references), please add a check mark to them. I might consider proceeding then. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed most of the problems, there are a few tweaks left to do but it is mostly fine now Shannon^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 01:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sulphur Creek (California)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

#:: Lead: Prehistorically, Sulphur Creek flowed south towards the Salt Creek drainage basin, but was blocked by the hills' uplift and turns north instead to join Aliso Creek. mixture of tense, poor grammar, could be rephrased less clumsily. (done)

1. Historically, being south of Aliso Creek, the Sulphur Creek watershed was part of the territory of the semi-nomadic Acjachemen Indian group, which was conquered by and renamed the Juaneño by Spanish conquistadors in the 17th and 18th centuries. who is better than which here. (clarify?)

   As increasing urban runoff poured into the creek, it became effluent-dominant, meaning that it now receives a perennial flow from runoff from drains very clumsy phrasing. (done)

   Course: After flowing through two more culverts, the creek enters a wider storm channel for a short stint, then after passing through two more culverts, the channel vanishes entirely. repetitive phrasing (done)

   At the third of these four culverts, the creek enters what is known as Sulphur Creek Park, better as just enters Sulphur Creek Park (done)

   At the lake, another small tributary (J03P04), What is (J03P04)? (done)

   Frankly the prose is poor in many places. I suggest that you enlist the help of someone else, perhaps through the WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors or WP:WikiProject California to help copy-edit the article thoroughly.

   I have made minor copy-edits throughout. I believe that the prose can just satisfy the Reasonably good criteria but I recommend thorough copy-editing if you wish to take this further.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   ref #24 is a dead link; can you show that ref #29 is a WP:RS; ref #14 doesn't show the creek at all so what is the point of it; ref #23 looks like OR

   (Ref 24 works on my computer, ref 29 removed, ref 14 just to prove a point made in the article, 23 deadlinked, can't find the original thing even on the Internet Archive so just removing the damn info that goes with it)

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:

   OK, this has all the makings of a good article but the points raised above need attention. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   I am happy that the article now satisfies the criteria but the prose could certainly be improved throughout. Pass as GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will keep working on it. Shannon^talk _contribs 17:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sulphur Creek (California). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070630142110/http://64.58.157.203/government/departments/Aliso%20Creek%20Plan/3.%20Technical%20Reports%20&%20Studies/06_Aliso%20Creek%20Cultural%20Resources%20Inventory.pdf to http://64.58.157.203/government/departments/Aliso%20Creek%20Plan/3.%20Technical%20Reports%20&%20Studies/06_Aliso%20Creek%20Cultural%20Resources%20Inventory.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)