Talk:The California Field Atlas/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ceoil (talk · contribs) 22:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. However, I don't really understand the highly structured GA process, so this maybe somewhat freewheeling and more akin, but less hoity and angsty, to PR. Ceoil (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * After an extensive read through, during which I made some heavy duty copy edits, I am inclined to pass this as GA. It's well sourced, written, and comprehensive. If I have any quibble its that there seems to be no effort to illustrate the article, on a topic that inherently could benefit from visuals that would provide both locus and generate near automatic sympathetic POV. I assume Commons has lots. Either way....this is easily GA to me. Ceoil  (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sonksen 2018 gives a harv ref error. Ceoil  (talk) 04:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! Fixed that harv ref. I looked over your copyedits and they were all significant improvements. The only change I disagreed with was removing the term "nature writing", which I think conveys the relevant subset of those writers' works as well as alluding to the overall post-Thoreau literary tradition of nonfiction nature writing.
 * I'd be interested in any feedback or suggestions you have for further illustrations. Some of the photos I selected are perhaps not visually remarkable in and of themselves, but seemed like possibly the only plausible options to accompany a given block of text (eg the UC Berkeley library building in the "Reception" section). Here are some ideas/here's me thinking out loud:
 * It looks like there is now a Commons-compatible portrait of the author on Flickr, so that's a no-brainer. The downside is it's a bit dated (2010) and his appearance has changed drastically since then (his woodsy beard is nowhere to be found), plus it's angled from above so it doesn't show him very directly. He's appearing at a bookstore near me on June 7th so I could just go to that and do the paparazzo thing.
 * One easy option could be to line up portraits of his major influences (Tolkien, Muir, et al), perhaps in a style similar to what I've done elsewhere—right now Snyder is the only one depicted, while Stegner is the only named influence with no PD/free-license portrait.
 * I considered using a map of California, but commons:Category:Maps of California doesn't offer much that's visually inspiring. Maybe the best way to address this would be to have a side-by-side with one of Kaufmann's painted maps next to its drab PD source map, mirroring the side-by-side coyotes. This would illustrate Kaufmann's point about the wealth of geographical info available and the dearth of creative application of same. Will have to go back through his interviews and the book to decide on a map but it would probably be something that accompanies the quote box about river maps.
 * There may be better options for Mount Diablo; the photo I chose has it a bit far off in the distance, and shot from an unusual side that may make it less recognizable as Mount Diablo to residents and others who know it. This centers the mountain itself better than most available pics and is probably a more "quintessential" view of the mountain (green grass is typically seen in the few rainiest months of the year, for most of the year it's yellow), although the freeway would contradict Kaufmann's road-free vision. This from Flickr also looks quite good.
 * His book tour coincided with the 2017 California wildfires, so an aerial photo of the late-'17 fires (1, 2, 3) might work. —BLZ · talk 01:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You had linked nature writing twice in the lead. That indiscretion aside, this is a most interesting and impressive page. Not done on reading; spectrum complaints to follow. Ceoil  (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ps love, at least include, maybe also 2. This is the suff that gives grounding to the page. Ceoil  (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)