Talk:Dream Mine/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 16:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll review this one. The preliminary review will be up in the next day or two. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2019 (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):
 * The article's organization is clear and logical, and the prose standard is good. To a non-Mormon, the terms "manifestation" and "testimony" as used in the second paragraph of the Koyle biography section are obscure; a gloss or a wikilink would help. The relevant MoS chapters seem to be followed, except as pertains to the article's lead section, which should be more substantial for an article of this length; it currently leaves out key information about the mine that belongs in the lead, such as the fact that the mine has apparently never produced ore of any economic value and has not been in operation since the 1960s. A second paragraph is called for.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * The sourcing looks good
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * There are significant details missing from the article's coverage: specifically, it leaves me wanting to know when the mine ceased operations (between 1914 and 1920, and then some time in the 1960s?), and what sorts of ores (if any) were ever extracted from it (the Lee source on p.43 mentions an isolated platium discovery in 1929). On the other hand, the biographical coverage of Koyle seems excessive in an article that isn't his biography.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article seems appropriately neutral regarding Koyle, the prophecy, and the mine's business.
 * 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 are appropriate and have good licenses.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall a well-made and interesting article! I've noted a few issues that should be addressed, and with a little work this should certainly be able to meet the standard. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Overall a well-made and interesting article! I've noted a few issues that should be addressed, and with a little work this should certainly be able to meet the standard. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The excessive biographical detail on Koyle has been forked out into John Hyrum Koyle, improving the article's focus. The other issues remain. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No edits to the article have been made in nearly a week. I'm putting the review on hold; if there isn't substantial movement in the next seven days, the nomination will fail. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd need to get my sources back together to address some of the issues you've raised. I'll try to gather them this week, though it might take some time. FallingGravity 01:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood, that's fine. I know it was a long wait for a review! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been another week and a half; can I get a timeline on your plans to address this review? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'd like to say I could improve it this Saturday, but I don't think I can make any promises since I've been very busy recently. Feel free to do what you want with this review. FallingGravity 04:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'll give it until the end of the weekend, and would love to see it succeed! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good progress! I'd like clarification about "manifestations" and "testimonies," and I'd really like to know what year the mine ceased operating in the '60s, if there's any way to find that out. Thanks for making time to work on it! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate the work has done here! My only remaining issue is that I really wish we could narrow down the cessation of mining operations to a particular year, but I see that it just doesn't seem to be in any of the sources, and I don't think it's a big enough issue to block the promotion by itself (though it should probably be figured out if the article's ever to be FA). I'm approving this article for GA, with cheers to the nominator for sticking with it! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)