Talk:Upper and Lower Table Rock/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Greetings! I'll be doing this GA review. Will probably need at least a couple of days to do a thorough read-through. To save us both time, I'll boldly make any minor corrections myself, but feel free to discuss or revert if you disagree with any changes I make. Sasata (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are my initial comments. I'll give the editor a chance to respond, and come back later to read through the article a second time, and check references. Sasata (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead

*What's the rationale for having all of those references in the lead? From WP:Lead:

The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality.

Since everything in the lead is both referenced and discussed in further detail later in the article, I don't think any citations are necessary here.

•  Fixed LittleMountain5 15:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

*The lead looks short for an article of this size. Any chance of fattening up the second paragraph? You could probably put in some stuff from the "History" section, and there's no mention of anything from the "Trails" section.

• Fleshed out a little. LittleMountain5 15:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Geology and climate

• it's considered poor MOS form to have text sandwiched between two images, as occurs at the beginning of this section. This can probably be alleviated by simply moving down "Upper and Lower Table Rock Terrain.png" to the bottom of the section.

•  Fixed I didn't move it to the very bottom as it would move the 'History' section header over. LittleMountain5 15:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• "...known to sustain a threatened species of fairy shrimp." How about parenthetically including the Latin name of this shrimp?

•  Fixed Linked to the species instead. LittleMountain5 15:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• "...creating slopes where plant and animal life has been able to take hold." How about "creating slopes capable of supporting both plant and animal life?"

•  Fixed LittleMountain5 15:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

*"The regions are called oak savanna, chaparral, mixed woodland, and mounded prairie, and are respectively ordered from the outermost base of the rocks to the relatively flat tops." I know what this is trying to say, but the sentence construction is a bit confusing and I had to read twice to be sure I understood it. Would fix myself but it's late and brain not on full speed :)

• I tried something else with it by splitting it up. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 03:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

History *"He funded residential lots near the landmark with the intent of marketing to visiting celebrities who used the grassy runway." Marketing what?

•  Fixed, I think. He was marketing the residential lots. LittleMountain5 15:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

*"Due to the threat to safety, the facility is closed to the public." Threat to safety of what or to whom?

•  Fixed LittleMountain5 15:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

*"In 1981, the Upper Table Rock Trail was built by the Youth Conservation Corps." Any info on the total length of the trail?

• There's more info in the 'Trails' section, but I could add it here too if you think it's necessary. LittleMountain5 15:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's fine as is. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

*"In 1984, the Table Rocks were designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern." By who?

•  Fixed LittleMountain5 15:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Flora and fauna *am wondering if "mixed woodland" would be better linked specifically to mixed woodland"

• Sounds good. LittleMountain5 15:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

*"Over 140 species of plants grow on the rocks, and another 200 species of wildflowers can be found." Wildflowers are plants too, so the sentence sounds a little off. How about "Over 340 species of plants grow on the rocks, including approximately 200 species of wildflowers."

•  Fixed LittleMountain5 15:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

*"The rocks are also home to many ticks..." Many ticks or many different species of ticks?

•  Fixed There's only one species, Ixodes pacificus, but I didn't link to that article because it only contains one very short sentence. LittleMountain5 15:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

*There's quite a few uses of the expression "can be seen" or "can be found" in this section, enough to be noticeable. You might consider changing a few for variety.

• Any suggestions? I've been stuck on this for a while... LittleMountain5 15:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Done. I left a couple that might sound better changed to "are" or something. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 14:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

*Have noticed throughout the article some inconsistency in the capitalization of "the Rocks" or "the rocks" as the short-hand way to name the subject.

•  Fixed LittleMountain5 15:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Trails *"Unwary hikers are advised not to approach the edge of the rocks," How are they advised? With signs?

• The sentence was not properly derived from the attached reference. I just removed it and moved the reference elsewhere. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 03:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Other

• Are the numerous multiple references really necessary? Some examples:

• "The surfaces of both Upper Table Rock and Lower Table Rock are somewhat flat, but are speckled with vernal pools known to sustain a threatened species of fairy shrimp.[3][9][14][15]"
• "Raising over $500,000, they purchased 1,881 acres (7.61 km2) of Lower Table Rock, creating the Lower Table Rock Preserve.[3][8][9][28][29]"
• "It was closed in 1906.[21][23][24]"
• "Some of the most common are buttercups, desert parsley, lupine, and goldfields.[7][8][9][31][32]" Four species mentioned, but 5 refs to support it?

• In these cases (and others I haven't listed), why not just pick the best single (or minimal number) reference that supports the statement?

• I've fixed them so all sentences have four refs or less. I could reduce it more if you would like. LittleMountain5 15:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's very close, but I really would the multiple citations trimmed a bit more. Here's a random example: Sasata (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The Table Rocks are presently one of the most popular hiking locations in the Rogue Valley, with up to 10,000 visitors annually.[5][25][31]" I don't have ref 5, so am not sure what it says. Ref 25 is fully adequate by itself as a source ("The two Table Rocks are the most popular hiking destination in the Rogue Valley with over 10,000 visitors each year."), as long as the wording is changed to "over 10,000" (source) rather than "up to 10,000" (article). Ref 31 says "The Table Rocks are among the most popular in southwestern Oregon", which is talking about a broader area than your sentence, and I don't think citing this adds anything for the reader. Another example:
• "This Indian reservation remained open for three years,[15][16][17]..." Three citations for one fact? Ref 15 covers is (although one would mentally have to subtract 1856-1853=3 to deduce this). Ref 16 also covers the fact in the same way. Can't access ref 17. Using three refs doesn't make the point any more valid, it just makes more work for the reader who might want to check a source.

• Reduced more. LittleMountain5 15:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review. All these comments are very helpful. :) I'll try to get to as many as I can, but unfortunately I will most likely not have internet access from tomorrow until August 29. (I might find WiFi, but that's unlikely). ZabMilenko may be able to help, but I'm not sure he's active presently. If there are still problems after today, I'll gladly try to fix them when I get back. Sorry for any inconvenience, LittleMountain5 15:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not, technically. This is the time of year I am normally stuck on other projects, but I've been trying to be close by. I'm going to be busy most of today but I'll work on this stuff as I can. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 14:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

Prose is reasonably well-written; article complies with MOS.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Well-referenced to reliable sources. I still think some some of the remaining multiple cites remaining are unnecessary, but several of the over-excessive examples have been reduced. I random-checked some of the sources and everything checks out.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Coverage is broad enough for GA level.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. 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):

   All images have appropriate free use licenses.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratulations! Sasata (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed review! Do you think this article has a chance at FAC later on? LittleMountain5 16:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Later on, after much more work is done :) Seriously, have a look at some of the existing FA's, in the Geography and places category, to steal some ideas. Further expansion could include more about the geological history of the area, climate (could summarize weather data in a nice table, see Black Moshannon State Park for example)... Good luck! Sasata (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)