Talk:Dixon Reservoir

Dixon Reservoir was nominated as a Geography and places good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 31, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lakes Low‑importance

	Lakes portal Dixon Reservoir is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on August 16, 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Goals for this Article

These are some goals for this article to get it to GA status.

Additional Sections/Subsections

The main problem with this article is the lack of sections. I had to add 3 subsections and 2 sections since there were none other than the references section. We need at least 10 subsections in total and at least 5 main sections to make the article look a bit cleaner.

Citing Sources and Links

Additionally, we need to cite more sources to further back-up the claims, kind of like evidence at a jury trial. If we don't further support our text, we will be left with a reminder or two on the top of the page. We need at least 1 or 2 references per 2 sentences, or 4-7 references per paragraph.

Detailing and Adding Text

Of course, we can't cite sources without more data to back it up, which s our good friend text. We just need more details to go into the article and a further explanation into what the Dixon Reservoir is.

Once we achieve all three of these, I'm clear to say that this will be a GA.

@The4lines: and since this is technically your article, I'm pinging you so you can read this. I'm positive if we cooperate together on this, it's for sure going to be a GA.

Best of luck, Go-Tsumaroki 15:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC):[reply]

@Go-Tsumaroki: I've done 2 GA's before and let me say they were hard, so I really don't think this will get GA. But we could get it to B class or something better then a stub. But your going to have to find a lot more good refs. Best Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 16:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The4lines: Agreed, but it may take a long time due to the overwhelming lack of sources.

Go-Tsumaroki

16:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mark83 (talk · contribs) 14:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Lead contains information not covered in main body (and unreferenced). References not after punctuation. Spelling and grammar issues, e.g. it's > its, weighting > weighing, "Reservoir's" capitailised mid-sentence, "It has been regularly noted to produce the largest kind of largemouth bass in the world. Beginning in 2001, when a 20 lb 12 oz (9.4 kg) largemouth bass was caught." linked sentences not punctuated as such, exact distances introduced as "about". Also see WP:WTW, e.g. "regularly noted" without sufficient verifability. CDFW incorrectly titled in the lead. "areas to fish" a clumsby way of saying this.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
As noted above, there is information without references. The first sentences of the History section are almost verbatim of the source to the point were its likely a copright violation. Some of the references are not correctly formatted (i.e. missing author and/or publisher).
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Superficial level of detail compared to GAs on this subject. Approximately 30% of the characters (excl tables) focuses on "Dottie" the bass. Inappropriate weight to this issue. What about it's construction as an example of a major topic that is ignored? Or information on the water shortage act that led to its creation. (At the very least the correct title of the piece of legislation would be good).
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The focus on the big bass catches seems a bit fawning, however the artice overall is NPOV.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The images don't provide the reader with a good understanding of the size of the reservoir, its location and/or context.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Very superficial level of detail which makes it frustrating that there are spelling issues, grammar issues, and basic fails versus MOS in such a small amount of text. Compare this article to GAs on similar topics at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Geography_and_places#Geography for an idea of where you should be aiming at.