Talk:Meadow Brook (Lackawanna River tributary)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bill McKenna (talk · contribs) 01:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

This article has a number of issues that prevent it from being a "Good Article".

Before I state my issues with the article, I would like to say that it is refreshing to see an article of this nature that is not simply a placeholder stub. It appears that a lot of work was done to make the article complete, encyclopedic and well-referenced. Nonetheless, it fails to meet several GA requirements.

1. Well-written: While this is often a subjective matter, I think most editors would consider some of the content to be rambling. There are a great number of references to environmental damage for instance, but it is so spread throughout the article that it is difficult to get a good sense of the level of degradation. Citation 7 needs to be corrected. The assertions in the history, watershed and biology are difficult to understand (how did the watershed shrink in size, for instance,and how did the tributary disappear?).

2. Verifiable: I'm going to nit-pick here, but I think it is important, and impacts the overall style; There are well documented facts in the article, but they seem to be interspersed with personal observation ("no wildlife was observed in this reach except for birds"). I really could overlook the weakness in verifiability, because much of the documentation is good, but the weaknesses exacerbate the "well-written" criterion.

3. Unnecessary detail:  This may be the biggest weakness in the article - The subject matter is, after all, a 2 mile long brook that has been been diverted into a culvert for most of its length. The environmental and historic information interests me, but it is a bit heavy handed for the subject. I'm afraid that this article, well-written with complete but not unnecessary detail would most likely be a stub, albeit a long stub. Hence, it may never be able to expand to where it could be a 'good article', even if flawlessly presented.

4. Neutrality: The author appears to want to emphasize the environmental degradation of the brook. I think that's OK, but a hint of a breach of neutrality exists. It would still pass my editorial standards, with some concern.

5. Illustrations: Because this has been asked for it is a necessity. Even though I don't think this will ever be a GA, a thumbnail pic would be a real improvement.

This article is rated as "C". Given the scope, and the low importance, I have a difficult time seeing this improved to a "B", let alone a GA. I sense the GA nominations for the region's waterways are partly driven by local boosterism; They are also probably nominations driven by enthusiasm and all the right reasons for working on Wikipedia. I'd say let this one play out (prob the other Scranton Area waterways, but I'm only guessing at this point), and keep going. Kindest regards, Bill McKenna (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do remember that any subject can become a GA; the requirement is comprehensive review of the material available, not a Platonic ideal. That said, the amount of apparent original research here is a problem; is there not governmental surveys and reports to use? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems that the nominator unfortunately is no longer active on Wikipedia. Shann  o  n  19:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Bill McKenna, as Shannon1 notes, Jakec left Wikipedia in early October September per this discussion, and posted a "Retired" notice which has gone undisturbed for over two months. Given the issues you've listed, it's clear you're not prepared to list this as a GA; since there's been no edits to address the issues you've given, it's probably time to close the nomination as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)