Talk:Hull Creek (Lackawanna River tributary)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Icebob99 (talk · contribs) 19:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. I'll start by checking it against the immediate failure criteria, and then move on to the GA criteria and cover them one by one. I am aware that this user is retired from Wikipedia, but that's no reason not to review. Icebob99 (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Going through the immediate failure criteria: No copyvios, no cleanup banners, no edit warring.

Going through the six GA criteria: Prose is a little short and choppy, but clear, concise, and good enough for GA, so (1a) is met. Meets criteria for lead (I hid a reference by using format, because it was listed in the main body of the article. Meets layout, with see also section at the end, followed by references and finally an external links section. The only slightly peacocky word in the article is "picturesque", but I will let that slide because it is put in quotes and presumably comes from the source. (I did a ctrl+F on the source to see if I could find it, but the format of the document doesn't let that shortcut find any word). No fiction or list incorporation to worry about, thus this meets (1b). (2a) is met with a reflist. All sources are reliable (mostly USGS info). Lots of statistics but they come from the surveys. No BLP material or controversial statements, so (2b) is met. Everything goes back to an inline citation, so no original research and thus it meets (2c). No copyvios as mentioned above, so the article meets (2d). Broad coverage is detailed and covers all aspects of the creek, 12kB readable prose, stays focused and only discusses technical material that is wholly relevant to the topic, so it meets (3a) and (3b). Neutrality is good, so it meets (4). Stability is good with only minor improvements and no edit warring, so it meets (5). No images so (6) does not concern this review, but I'll add an image later on (with appropriate licensing and caption), just to have one.

Suggestions that are optional for GA but may be useful later on:
 * Clean up short and choppy prose
 * Add in short summaries of technical concepts (such as channelization or coal measures).

This article meets all the good article criteria and thus passes as a good article.