Talk:Mother Brook/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 00:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One external link is "forbidden"
No DABs
Images appropriately licensed.
Digging the Brook Only the full name is a proper noun and should be capitalized. Similarly don't capitalize Town when referring to Dedham.
Link on first use: canal, mill, dam, flood gate, raceway, pulmotor, skateboard park
Do not abbreviate obscure units like rods and also link them by adding |lk=in to the conversion template.
and it was known as Mother Brook Shouldn't this be "has been known" instead?
How was the mill a public utility when it was sold to Whiting, et al. in 1642?
Only convert measurements on first use.
Add a note explaining why December was the 10th month, pre-Gregorian calendar.
Add links for the various types of mills like gristmill, sawmill, papermill, etc.
due to an excavation in Newton, the previous agreement was no longer workable. Explain why.
During the 1990s a science teacher at Dedham High School ran water quality tests on the Brook. And his conclusions were?
James Cox did drown drowned
Not really sure that all of these accidents, drownings and rescues are really worth noting. How long would this be for a larger river?
she got too close to the channel and was swept in over her head. She was able to be saved. Awkward.
improvements to the bridges over the brook really aren't part of the article's remit, IMO.
gave instruction to the crowds What does this mean?
well kept gardens add a hyphen between well kept.
The banks were lined with fishermen in 1941 Really, all year round? Change this to heavily used in 1941 or some such.
The general contractor was the Kaplan Corp., the landscape architects was Weinmayr Associates, and the financing was provided by the Mutual Bank. Too much detail for an encyclopedia.
And the same is true of many of your notes, especially when they list non-notable men.
Be consistent about using title case in the titles of your references.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I have updated the article, making most of the changes you suggested. I have a few questions and comments regarding a few, to wit:

One external link is "forbidden" - There is no external links section. To which link are you referring?

Run the external link checker in the GA Toolbox to see.

Only the full name is a proper noun and should be capitalized. - I think this is a case like House instead of House of Representatives, but I made the changes anyway. Likewise, the Town is the official body, while the town is the community.
Not really sure that all of these accidents, drownings and rescues are really worth noting. - Fair point, but it's not a longer river.

True, but it's really kind of monotonous.

Too much detail for an encyclopedia. - I would agree that it would be too much detail for the body, but think it is appropriate for the notes.

While I agree that they're less bothersome in the notes, it seems to me that you're trying to cram as much information as possible into the article, one place or another. And that's not what Wiki's really about as we're supposed to be encyclopedic in detail, which I interpret as there's only a certain level of detail worth recording. While we're not constrained by paper like the Britannica, do you honestly think that everything in the article would make it into even a more specialized encyclopedia like, say, an one about Dedham?

Be consistent about using title case in the titles of your references. - I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?

See Title case for guidance. Examples would be ref #1 (in title case), #4 (in all-caps), and #169 (not in title case).

Thanks a lot! I appreciate your help. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to hijack the review, and I hope nobody minds me butting in, but I've been keeping an eye on this article for a while, and I think that there are serious problems with the article's composition. Currently it seems to be mostly a long description of local history that only tangentially relates to the creek; from a cursory glance, it seems quite possible that you could cut out at least half of it. You could replace it with information about the creek as it is now: hydrology (isn't there a USGS gauge on the creek?), geography/geology, watershed/land use, wildlife/plantlife, and so on. But right now, it's almost entirely about history, and not all of it is about the creek. A bit unbalanced. I also notice a lot of quotes; the article should say things in its own words unless it's quoting someone's opinion, or there's some other reason why it's important that a specific person said a specific thing. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You make some good points, but I'm failing the article as the nominator has not further discussed the issues that I brought up earlier about the general tone of the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]