Talk:Suiattle River

	; Archives (Index) ;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Suiattle River article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Suiattle River has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 31, 2024. (Reviewed version).

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

GA Review

Passed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 23:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 00:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dibs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead's a little scant
Link Snohomish County?
Two successive sentences open with "here" and "from here" under "Course". Could reword around to reduce repetition
"sees most rain" - " sees the most rain" I think
" Above 3500 ft" missed one cvt template here
"A future lahar..." this sentence feels out of place in the middle of the rest, which are bout past lahars. I might move it to the end and reword it a bit accordingly
"the initial bridge" - not sure initial is the right word here. Original maybe, or first.
Btw, any details about when the Skyline Bridge was built?

Generally this looks good to me, above notes are suggestions, nothing that impacts the GACR in them. Images are lovely, really great selection. Sourcing is good, spot checks on available sources showed no concerns. No POV, CV, etc. Good to go, nice work! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that every summer, the Suiattle River dirties the Sauk with glacial debris?

Source: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2017/5113/sir20175113.pdf pg. 1

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Southern chivalry

Promoted to Good Article by Generalissima (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 78 past nominations.

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I will be reviewing this today. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Overall, I think this is pretty good! Although I feel like the hook could be a teensy bit more interesting, I'll let that pass because it is still something that sounds cool. The source is a-okay (and mentions it, the most important part), as well as date of the GA promotion and length of the article itself. No image, so no issues there, sources in the article itself are good, neutrality checks off, and while Earwig did find a ~27% copyvio likeliness, that's still pretty low. QPQ is done, so everything checks off! (Good luck on that Francis Bacon source!) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]