User:Shannon1/AlisoCreek
Template:WikiProject status This is an inactive WikiProject for the expansion of Aliso Creek.
Overview edit
Article will be assessed every ten or so days starting May 7, 2009. A peer review will be requested likely in late May or Early June. (INACTIVE)
Article has passed GA without major incident, and has grown a lot since it was accepted.
As of 7 May 2009, "readable content" is about 37,000 bytes. See User:Shannon1/AlisoCreek/PageSizeEstimate for details and the test.
User:AndyZ/Suggestions is a useful page.
The development of the article edit
- When just created (471 bytes) (Gargamayo12 is one of my old accounts.)
- The first time I edited it under this account (5630 bytes)
- When first rewritten (6474 bytes)
- Beginning to develop... (9990 bytes)
- When nominated for GA (19278 bytes)
- Passed GA (35883 bytes)
- Current revision (Around 67000 bytes)
Totals for FA Review edit
| Total amount | 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Points | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 102 (max.) |
| May 7 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 68 |
| May 16 |
Aliso Creek- FA Review (20090507) edit
It is: edit
- Well written?
Prose is engaging: It is factual and neutral, but may not be interesting enough.
Brilliant: See previous.- Professional: Perhaps, but not enough.
- Comprehensive?
Neglects no major facts: Should be a relatively complete description of the topic.
Places subject in context: Stays on topic and does not stray far from the main topic, the creek and watershed.
- Well researched?
Thorough, representative survey of relative literature: Don’t know.- Reliable sources: Most sources are either from Orange County Watershed, a local government source that should be credible, or from a large array of different news articles, which all largely agree on info.
- References and inline citations: Has a sufficient references section (50-something refs) and has many inline citations, mostly formatted correctly and only needs minor cleanup for repeats.
- Neutral?
- Fair and w/o bias: Although the creek is a huge pollution problem, the article doesn’t continuously argue from an environmentalist point of view; it contains more general info.
- Stable?
No edit wars: None at all; the article has been mostly stable for many months.- Content does not change significantly from day to day: I occasionally add a few sentences of content each day; otherwise the article should be stable.
Style guidelines edit
- Lead section?
- Concise and detailed for all topics covered: I have been always a little troubled on lead sections, but it has passed the GA review without much incident.
- Appropriate structure:
- Section headings and substantial table of contents: Yes, each section has an appropriate title and heading. TOC is not too complicated.
- Consistent citations: Yes, each paragraph has at least 1-2 citations, though most have around 2-3.
- Images?
- Image use policies: All images used in the article are either self-work, released under Public domain or Creative Commons, or taken from a source that allows public use (Planiglobe).
- Captions: Captions should be fine with a few small flaws that may need to be addressed to meet FA status.
- Length?
- Stays focused: Most of the article stays on topic but the geography section in "Overview" may need a little simplifying (though I feel it is fine and does not need to be addressed).