Talk:Dixon Reservoir/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mark83 (talk · contribs) 14:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Lead contains information not covered in main body (and unreferenced). References not after punctuation. Spelling and grammar issues, e.g. it's > its, weighting > weighing, "Reservoir's" capitailised mid-sentence,  "It has been regularly noted to produce the largest kind of largemouth bass in the world. Beginning in 2001, when a 20 lb 12 oz (9.4 kg) largemouth bass was caught." linked sentences not punctuated as such, exact distances introduced as "about".  Also see WP:WTW, e.g. "regularly noted" without sufficient verifability.  CDFW incorrectly titled in the lead. "areas to fish" a clumsby way of saying this.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * As noted above, there is information without references. The first sentences of the History section are almost verbatim of the source to the point were its likely a copright violation.  Some of the references are not correctly formatted (i.e. missing author and/or publisher).
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Superficial level of detail compared to GAs on this subject. Approximately 30% of the characters (excl tables) focuses on "Dottie" the bass.  Inappropriate weight to this issue.  What about it's construction as an example of a major topic that is ignored?  Or information on the water shortage act that led to its creation.  (At the very least the correct title of the piece of legislation would be good).
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The focus on the big bass catches seems a bit fawning, however the artice overall is NPOV.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The images don't provide the reader with a good understanding of the size of the reservoir, its location and/or context.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Very superficial level of detail which makes it frustrating that there are spelling issues, grammar issues, and basic fails versus MOS in such a small amount of text. Compare this article to GAs on similar topics at Good_articles/Geography_and_places for an idea of where you should be aiming at.
 * Very superficial level of detail which makes it frustrating that there are spelling issues, grammar issues, and basic fails versus MOS in such a small amount of text. Compare this article to GAs on similar topics at Good_articles/Geography_and_places for an idea of where you should be aiming at.