Jump to content

Talk:Spring Creek Dam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSpring Creek Dam has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 28, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 29, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Spring Creek Dam collects acid mine drainage from one of the most acidic streams in the world?


GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Spring Creek Dam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Feedback:
    • I say this on almost every US review I do, and I say it again: Americans are not the only people on the earth. Quite contrary, two-thirds of the world's English speakers are not from the US, and most of them (as well as many Americans) have a very bad understanding of US geography. So, please, always remember to specify the country. (fixed)
    • Need to convert acre feet to metric.
    • Remember to use a minus sign (−) instead of a hyphen for negative values. (fixed)
    • There are very strict rules for when italics can be used (see WP:Italics). They do not include use as in "storage expansion".
    • Avoid terms like "as previously mentioned". (fixed)
    • US dollars should be in the format USD X or US$X, not $X USD. (fixed)
    • Try to avoid using boldface outside the lead. (fixed)
    • Believe it or not, but people in the US want electricity production in horsepower, at least according to the MoS (unless you have read anywhere that it is except). Also, it should be 180 megawatt, not 180,000 kilowatt.
    • Remember that kilo is always abbreviated with a small-cap "k" (i.e. kW).
    • The "see also" section should be as short as possible (ideally non-existent), and avoid repeating links in the main body. (fixed)
    • There area a lot of external links. See WP:EL for an elaboration around this. In general, external links should be kept at a minimum.
    • Add a {{commonscat}} link to the dam at the Commons. Please copy the images to the Commons, so they can be used in other-language articles as well. Also consider adding an Energy Portal link. {{kml}} is not needed, as there is only one coordinate.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Abbreviations like "EPA" and "CA" need to be spelled out.
    • Even if the source uses them, do not use all-caps, since it is a typographical, not grammatical choice.
    • Does ref 13 cover the whole "storage expansion" section. If so, could you add an additional ref at the end of the first paragraph.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • For accessibility reasons, please do not force the image sizes.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    The article is nearly there, but there are a few small things that need to be tweaked. Arsenikk |(talk)]] 21:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from second reviewer

[edit]

User:Arsenikk appears to have been inactive since 24 May 2009, so I'm reviewing this article with a view to concluding the GAN.Pyrotec (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

The 'problems' raised by the first reviewer appear to have been successfully addressed.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Importance?!

[edit]

Do any of you actually read the article before you assess importance?! The dam is hugely important in preventing fishkills in the Sacramento River and protecting its water quality because it collects pH 1 water from one of the most toxic mines in the world. Someone also labelled Sierra Nevada (U.S.) as mid importance for WikiProject California, though the mountains cover a fourth of the state. Unbelievable. Shannontalk SIGN! 05:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair comment, but who ever did the importance assessments considered them, individually, for WP Energy and WP California (their usernames can be found from the history log). There is a WP Rivers, but this article was not assessed for that project; possibly it would be considered to have a higher importance. The assessment of Sierra Nevada (U.S.) has no bearing on the assessment of this article, but you are perfectly entitled to ask WikiProject California for a re-assessment the importance of both articles. I'm not a member of any of those WPs, but I do read articles before I assessment them. Pyrotec (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know for Sierra Nevada; I changed it a while ago and I just had to bring it up here because the same thing happened. I have random outbursts; I am feeling somewhat better now. Shannontalk SIGN! 18:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article

[edit]

Why move it back to Spring Creek Dam? Reclamation states that the dam is Spring Creek Debris Dam, most of the other sources say that too. I don't know if I've violated a GA rule by doing so, tell me if I did. Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 23:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spring Creek Dam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spring_Creek_Dam&oldid=1210514228"