Talk:Image Lake/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 00:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. While you wait, why not spare a thought for the other nominees, and conduct a review or two yourself? This provides excellent insight into the reviewing process, is enjoyable and interesting. A list can be found here Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

• Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
• If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
• Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Issues addressed
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Extensively
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Commentary

Thanks for bringing this article to this standard. This article is a well-written and comprehensive article which will surely be promoted, however I have some minor stylistic comments below:

• Unusual to see "Nineteenth century and the early Twentieth century" capitalised
• "However, places such as fragile alpine meadows are recovering, and wolves and grizzly bears have been sighted in areas near Image Lake." may need an "As of" and am not sure "have been sighted" is encyclopedic enough to be mentioned in the lead? Sounds somewhat like a travellogue
• Suggest add a ", which surround Image Lake" after "and travel northeast toward the Cascade Mountains", for clarity
• "In the winter, the areas west of the Cascade Crest experience heavy snowfall." is stated twice, suggest remove
• Hydrology provides areas in miles, kilometres, acres and hectares, suggest pick a pair and stick to that.
• I feel the 'climate' and 'hydrology' sections may benefit from See also links to the relevant article, as this lake appears to belong to a greater ecosystem
• "began during the late cretaceous" add ”period"
• Suggest "North Cascades Ecoregion" decapitalise "ecoregion"
• In "History" suggest add "the": "before present" -> "before the present"

Additional comments:

• Overall quite well-written and engaging to read
• Article does not appear to close paraphrase
• Article is well-sourced
• No problems with images

I look forward to your comments. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I do have a few comments relating to MOS:NUM and how it connects to your advice:

• According to WP:PRESENT, "before present" is preferred over "before the present."

All right, no worries then. --LT910001 (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Per MOS:NUM#Other articles, placing the "secondary" unit in parentheses after the "main" measurement is preferred.

Sorry, my meaning was that there are two pairs of measurements relating to area (square km + square miles, hectares + acres) and that for consistency only one pair has been used. --LT910001 (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I either have or will soon addressed the other issues that you brought up in the above list. Thank you very much for your advice, and I hope you have (/had) a happy new year. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 01:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC) (Updated 16:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC))

Conclusion

Thanks, the article is looking much better. I'd still like the area issue addressed, but the article as it is meets or exceeds the GA criteria is well-written, and well-sourced, so I'm promoting it to GA status. Well done! I have made the relevant changes. Best wishes on your wiki-travels, --LT910001 (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)