Talk:Sulphur Creek (California)/GA1

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


 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments
This seems to be quite a reasonable article, at or about GA-level; so I'll go through it in more detail section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last.Pyrotec (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Course -
 * I was unable to verify that in-line 6 states what is claimed in the article.
 * The WMP states something like "removal of 3000 feet of concrete channel between Sulphur Creek Park and Crown Valley Parkway". Shannon  talk   SIGN!  18:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That quotation appears to come from reference 8, not ref 6. I went to this page, which is called up by ref 6, and did a search for concrete. The only match for Sulphur Creek was: - "This management measure proposes restoration of Sulphur Creek in the reach beginning just upstream of the water treatment plant to the community center access road along Crown Valley Parkway. This involves the modification of the existing flow control structure at the upstream boundary of the reach, modification of the small basins at the upstream and downstream ends of the reach, restoration of the riparian terraces and stabilization of side slopes, and reestablishment of native riparian vegetation. The measure also proposes to restore riparian habitat in the reach along the Crown Valley Parkway between La Plata Drive and Moulton Parkway. This includes the replacement of the concrete low-flow V-ditch with a natural meandering low flow channel, removal of non-native species, as well as reestablishment of native riparian vegetation." Pyrotec (talk) Pyrotec (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the bit of info I used for the citation. When it mentions "concrete low-flow V ditch" and considering the location it mentions, it is safe to assume there is a concrete channel in that stretch, which is exactly what is stated in the article. Shannon  talk   SIGN!  01:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference 8 is broken - Error 404. (done) ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Will fix. Shannon  talk   SIGN!  18:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 9 provides coordinates, it does not appear to provide verification of what is claimed in the article. (done, moved it to appropriate spot as it only verifies a place-name) (Removed) ✅
 * Ref 10 does not provide verification of what is claimed in the article. (done, added map key to support; "J03P01" is Niguel Storm Drain) ✅
 * Ref 11 provides coordinates, it does not appear to provide verification of what is claimed in the article. (Done; that is just for the name of the park; the OC Watersheds site verifies this and google maps seems to say so as well. If I have to, I can remove that from the article as it is not really important, really. Shannon  talk   SIGN!  01:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence containing ref 8 discusses two sets of two culverts. The following sentence says "the first of these", presumably this is the third culvert? ✅
 * Ref 12 refers to the J03P02 MS4 component, but does not confirm the statement (other than there is a J03P02 MS4 component).
 * Ref 13 refers to a multi-page report, but does not provide a page number. (done) ✅ 10:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 14 does not provide verification of what is claimed in the sentence. (This is the Narco Channel, shown in the OC Watersheds map. Added the ref there too) ✅
 * References 2 & 15 do not appear to provide verification of what is claimed in the sentence. (Both are maps; is referring to maps ok?)
 * Ref 2 does not point directly to the map, it points to an Aliso Creek Watershed and Elevation Ranges and then you have to click to get a map. It would be better to reference the map directly. The link for Ref 15 is google maps for the whole of the North American continent - USA, Mexico and half of Canada; its not even a map of California, or Orange County. You need to set the right scale.Pyrotec (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you do that? Shannon  talk   SIGN!  01:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Open up the google map link and zoom into where you to want to go. I choose "Orange County, California" and then "Alison Creek"; click on 'link' on the top right hand side and copy and paste the link into wikipedia (I got these ). Its also possible to switch between map, Satellite and Terrain views, but you need to change the link. Pyrotec (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC) ✅


 * Geology -
 * Reference 15 does not appear to provide verification of what is claimed in the sentence. (See comment above) Pyrotec (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC) (Ref 15 was simply for extra caution; ref 22 backs it up. Why is the placement of references important if there is another reference that is acceptable?) ✅


 * Watershed -
 * Reference 22 does not appear to provide verification of what is claimed in the sentence. (Ref 22 is referring to the map on the webpage.) ✅
 * Ref 24 refers to a multi-page report, but does not appear toprovide a page number. (done) ✅
 * Reference 25 does not appear to provide verification of what is claimed in the sentence. ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference 2 does not appear to provide verification of what is claimed in the Sentence. (yes it does, it is the Durham ref) ✅
 * Ref 26 refers to a multi-page report, but does not provide a page number. (no, it's the OC Watersheds map, and fixed link too) ✅
 * Reference 27 refers to a multi-page report, but does not provide a page number. (done) ✅


 * History -
 * Ref 28 refers to a multi-page report, but does not provide a page number. (done) ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 29 refers to a multi-page report, but does not provide a page number. (done) ✅
 * References 32 & 33 do not appear to provide verification of what is claimed in the sentence. (ref 33's link seems to be awry, it is confusing sand canyon reservoir with sulphur creek reservoir, but I cannot fix that; and ref 32 does, it's the OC Parks history link.) ✅


 * Wildlife and flora -
 * A Good section, appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.


 * Variant names -
 * I'm not convinced that ref 3 verifies the claim.
 * Ref 3 is the GNIS, and it states that explicitly. Shannon  talk   SIGN!  02:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:lead -
 * Quite a good lead.

Overall comment
Quite a good, readable article, that appears to be well referenced. However, from the review carried out so far, I'm not convinced so far that the statements made in the article are fully verified as per WP:Verify. This WP:GAN is therefore on Hold whilst these 'problems' are addressed. Some of these, such as the ues of multi-page reports should be easily addressed by citing page numbers; others, were maps are used, by the selection of appropriate scales and resolutions. Pyrotec (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As nearly a month has gone by, with little progress, I'm going to close down this review; which means marking this article as a "failedGA". Overall, this article is quite close to being a GA, the main problem being lack of WP:verification of some references. I suggest the the article be resubmitted at a future date once these problems have been addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Very busy recently, will address at a future date. Shannon  talk   contribs  sign! :) 20:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)