GA Review

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

Reviewer: Editoneer (talk · contribs) 08:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Editoneer (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC) Eek, I need to go for now, here's my decision so far. Editoneer (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written, Broadness, Neutrality

  • dispersed, sadly links to a disambiguation page.  Done
  • prominent, if this has the sense of "important" or "famous" then that sounds unneutral.  Done
  • There's many words that show doubt, it's not confirmable?  Done
  • A. C. Spencer, are they mostly known for their abbreviation or you are able to write their name fully?  Done
  • In 1901 (...) In 1957,, I believe [In year] is becoming too repeatable, do you believe that you are able to write and then in 1957 or somewhere along those lines?  Done
  • (river) outlet as the river didn't have any way to flow?  Done
    • I'm not sure this is an improvement, During its early formation, the lake likely had no permanent outlet., so I suppose you could say "water outlet", or "river outlet", but I think that's pretty implied from the lake not having an outlet. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • river bluffs a what?  Done

Verifiability

  • [6] any link to be provided?  Done
    • It's a journal released in 1957, seems unlikely. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've found a link regarding the content [link blocked, it's from the site you took the information from], do you believe it's worth mentioning this book regarding the quote? Editoneer (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • This ref only covers: By 1957, geologists Oscar J. Ferrians and H.R. Schmoll concluded the basin had been resident to a large proglacial lake during the Wisconsin glaciation.. Citing the original journal is plenty. We don't neccesarily need online sourcing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media

Good job and good luck! Editoneer (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

Good review, good article. I've got but a few things to nitpick over:

  • Later: Matanuska River, Susitna River, Tok River, and Copper River depending on period isn't completely sourced in the body. (from infobox)
  • Smith is listed in sources, and also in references (FN14), but less well formatted (not relevant to GA criteria)
  • One flood may have contributed to the destruction caused by the 1964 Alaska earthquake. I had initially read the lead too fast, and assumed the lake flooded in 1964. I think this sentence would benefit from explaining quickly by what mechanism (Old deposits from a flood may have contributed ...(?) (and then caused by -> from to make the sentence shorter?). FemkeMilene (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, it's done already? Editoneer (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought your initial review was great. Nice and in-depth. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Femkemilene:, hello, if you are done with your second opinion please tell me. Editoneer (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm done. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No tags for this post.