Talk:Creekfinding/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 18:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Copyvio check. I reviewed the few matches over 4% on Earwig's Copyvio Detector and had no concerns. Matches are the title and such WP:LIMITED phrases as "published by the University of Minnesota Press", "at the end of the book" and "the illustrations for the book".
 * Images: Suitable FUR in place for the cover; other images have CC licenses. Images are relevant; placement and captions are fine. The Osterholm picture could have alt text added; alt text for the other images is OK.
 * Added alt text. DanCherek (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Background and publication
 * You could wikilink epidemiologist. (I'm not sure if there's a suitable way to resphrase to opening to avoid MOS:SEAOFBLUE, though.)
 * I thought about this for a bit and removed "the American epidemiologist" from the lead, and then in the first section of this Background section, I rephrased it as: "In 2002, Michael Osterholm purchased 98 acre of land near Dorchester, Iowa. Osterholm, an epidemiologist, was told..." DanCherek (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Optionally, you could wikilink acres.
 * Done. DanCherek (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Although authors and illustrators of picture books often work separately," - I didn't see explicit support for this in the source cited.
 * Modified this one to quote McGehee from that source with attribution: According to McGehee, while "traditionally author and illustrator don't connect during the creation of a picture book," the two collaborated... DanCherek (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Synopsis
 * Seems a fair summary, from what I see in sources.

Writing and illustrations
 * Seems fine.

Reception
 * thinking about NPOV, I had a look in NewsBank and while there are quite a few reviews/mentions in local US papers, none of them seem anything other than positive. I didn't spot any that seemed like real omissions from the set of reviews summarised here. (No action or reply needed on this.)
 * "received particular applause from critics" - while I wouldn't have commented on "was applauded by critics", "received ... applause" seems a bit too literal. But if it's not uncommon in American English than it's fine to keep the current wording.
 * Yeah, I can see how that sounds weird. Reworded to "Reviewers also wrote positively about McGehee's scratchboard illustrations." DanCherek (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources/References
 * Spot checks on Kilen (2017), Giorgio (2017), and Auerbach (2017) - no issues identified except anything noted above.

Infobox and lead
 * Quite a short lead, but I don't think there are any glaring omissions. I guess that the New York Public Library and Riverby Awards may not be big enough deals to be mentioned.
 * Added the Riverby Award to the lead, just for a little more comprehensiveness. DanCherek (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead could perhaps be reworked to make it clearer that both the real and fictional creeks were restored and saw wildlife flourish.
 * Modified the lead a bit to try to accommodate this, let me know what you think. DanCherek (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article,. Feel free to challenge any of my comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review! I am working on these now... DanCherek (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My power is out due to Hurricane Ian, so will resume after it’s restored later today... DanCherek (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, sorry for the delay and thanks again for the review. I've made changes to the article in response to your helpful suggestions above. DanCherek (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so am passing it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)