Talk:Lake Tecopa/GA1

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

Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) 22:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Overall progress
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Review
Hi! Over the next couple days, I will be reviewing this article in accordance with the good article criteria. In the meantime, I may make minor copyedits and fixes to the article. I will also post any thoughts or suggestions here so you can review them and decide whether you want to make any changes. Thank you for your work on this article! Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Prose & MoS
 * From the lede: "Afterwards, the Amargosa River cut a gorge out of the lake and into Death Valley...." I had to do a double-take when reading this, since it sounds like someone cut a gorge out of the lake like one might cut out a slice of pie. Do you think either of the following wordings might be better? "Afterwards, the Amargosa River cut a gorge between the lake and Death Valley...." (assuming my understanding is correct that the river connected the two lakes) or "Afterwards, the Amargosa River cut a gorge exiting the lake and into Death Valley...."?
 * Hmm. I think perhaps these alternatives overstate the importance of Death Valley in the process a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * From the lede: "...causing the disappearance of the lake." I think a better way to phrase this point is "...draining the lake.", since that is more concise.
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * From the lede: "...which has left sediments behind.". This clause doesn't appear to be in any way related to the existence of the towns. Could this be clarified, reworded, or perhaps just dropped from the lede?
 * Aye, moved that one up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * From the Climate section: "in Shoshone, California average temperatures are 19.5 °C (67.1 °F) and often over 45 °C (113 °F)". Average daily temperatures? Average yearly temperature? Average night vs average day temperatures? Could you clarify this?
 * Rectified that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * From the Sediments section: "Some of these formed when ash or sediments were progressively altered." What does this mean? Metamorphism?
 * Added a link to explain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * From the Biology section: "Footprints have been observed at the edges of the lake basin." Are these the footprints of the previously-mentioned animals, humans, or something else?
 * Presumably vertebrate, but the source does not specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * From the History section: "About 2 million years ago, the Amargosa Desert began to drain into Lake Tecopa, but before 1 million years ago it often became a playa, especially between 1.6 and 0.9 million years ago." While it is clear from context that the pronoun "it" refers to the lake, it would normally refer to the desert in this position. ( &larr; See the previous sentence for an example of this very usage.) A second issue I have with this sentence is that the central clause, "before 1 million years ago it often became a playa", is almost entirely superseded by the third. I'm also not entirely sure what this sentence is trying to say. Is it trying to imply that Lake Tecopa was a playa prior to the draining of the Amargosa Desert and that the increased water input caused the lake to have water continuously? On the other hand, is it trying to say that prior to this (before 2 MYA), Lake Tecopa was not a playa, but after this event, it was? This sentence should probably be reworded a bit and/or expanded to eliminate these issues.
 * Did some changes; is it clearer now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I like this new wording much better. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Great work! The sourcing & citing especially is excellently done. There are just a few minor grammatical issues throughout the article that need correcting, but other than that, it should be good to go. Personally, I would like to see some of the paragraphs be a little more fleshed out; but unfortunately, information regarding ancient lakes is (unsurprisingly) sparse, so we'll just have to make do with what we've got. In any case, thank you for your work on creating and expanding this article! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Overall review