Talk:Trexler Nature Preserve/GA1

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

Reviewer: Peripitus (talk · contribs) 10:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Overall this is an interesting article on an interesting place, but it has some work required to meet the good article standard.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The are a few textual issues as listed below, and an issue related to references in the lead section.
 * Should he be General Trexler, Gen. Trexler or just Trexler. Personally I'd tend to the latter except in the first use of his name where the full format is appropriate, but there should be consistent usage.
 * link and decapitalise Gristmill
 * link or explain fee simple
 * "In addition, admission projections" - in addition is not required and projections is wrong as it talks about both the projection and the actual attendances. Sentence needs some rewording
 * "As described in the previous section," is not needed. A reader will have just read the section.
 * you have "distinctive hill and valley" twice in the one paragraph. I'd remove the second usage
 * of Jordan Creek and its tributaries -> "of the watercourses" to remove some repetitiveness ?
 * " elevation from Jordan Creek" - I think this needs the word "rise" after elevation
 * zoo's iconic ford. - why is it iconic ?
 * "split into three ranges" -> split into three areas or ranges. in case someone does not use range in this context.
 * link mountain biking
 * "and proceeds south" - surely this should be something like "and on the south" - a range is bounded but does not proceed.
 * coterminous - wonderful and concise word but I don't think its appropriate in this case as the two areas only share a single border. perhaps adjacent or "bordering on" ?
 * grassland ridge nose - what is a ridge nose ?
 * explain rather than just link LEED. acronyms should not require clicking to discover their meaning.
 * "and continues south until the preserve meets the boundary " could be the much simpler "and its Southern boundary is"
 * in The Lehigh Valley Zoo it not good to be self-referential towards Wikipedia, this bit should go and be replaced by some text from the linked article.
 * most places where the words "located" or "also" are used they are unnecessary. "located in" means the same as "in" and "also" is usually implicit in the context. Fewer words is often better than more. eg: is located in a 2,700-square-foot
 * However, in - however is not a good word to start a sentence with. The juxtaposition of the two statements following each other is sufficient without needing this word
 * These operation were carried on throughout the nineteenth century .... remove "were" and the sentence keeps meaning but is more succinct.
 * started a competing second mill on the east side of Mill creek -> started a competing mill on the creek's east side. More succinct again
 * Atop of a - of is unnecessary.
 * the only structural issue is that there is material in the lead (the text cited by reference [5] in particular) that is not elsewhere in the text. The lead should only summarise material elsewhere in the article, not have material uniquely. References in the lead are a pointer to this issue - for most articles there is no necessity to reference the lead section as the material is referenced where it appears in the main article.
 * The Central Range itself can be subdivided into eastern and western sections, the boundary of which is demarcated by the Jordan Creek. ... can be ? A bit wordy. How about "The Central Range is itself can be subdivided into eastern and western sections, the boundary of which is demarcated by the Jordan Creek."
 * features a rooftop observ... -> has a rooftop observ... the longer word adds little but more letters
 * " from anywhere else in the preserve." - from elsewhere in the preserve ... shorter and perhaps better
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There are significant sections without inline citations so I cannot tell what references are supposed to back the material up
 * Hydrology and a few subsequent sections lack inline references.
 * does the source really say that Trexler as a proto-environmentalist ?
 * "represents one of the best example of early 21st century public architecture" - is this a quote or is there a reference for this assertion ?
 * last few sentences of the "The Eastern Central Range." section - I am concerned about how close the text is to that in the source. There has not been sufficient rewording of this.
 * In "Hiking" only 1/2 a sentence is supported by the google maps link. The material here, as elsewhere, needs inline references.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Covers all of the material I would expect on the place. Searching on the web does not show any obvious holes.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * "Picture of the Northern Range" - remove "Picture of the". Also capitals in the captions should only be used where they would be in normal sentences. Eg: Native Trees -> native trees
 * Not a GA problem but I'd love a map - particularly for the Hydrology section, as the directions all blur together.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm placing this GA nom on hold. The textual issues are fairly simple to rectify. The sourcing issues, from the work done so far, I suspect are rectifiable in time. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm placing this GA nom on hold. The textual issues are fairly simple to rectify. The sourcing issues, from the work done so far, I suspect are rectifiable in time. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Communication
Just a quick update. I am having an archivist look up a 2005 government report about plant and animal distributions within the preserve. That report should provide citations for the ares in this article that don't have adequate in line citations. The document is not currently available to the public online (you have to physically go to the government office to read it). However, I will put in a request that they make it available online. Work is on hold until I get the report. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehightrails (talk • contribs) 09:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I'll keep watch - Peripitus (Talk) 11:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've started looking through the recent edits, and making minor edits on the way. I'll finish going through it this weekend - Peripitus (Talk) 11:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.100 (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Live got in the way and this has taken longer than I expected. I've edited a lot of textual issues out, removed overlinking and corrected some reference formatting/duplication errors. There are some remaining issues to be resolved:
 * I've tagged the parts missing references with citation needed - these 7 sentences either need citations or to be removed
 * The lead has citations that show text not in the article. refs [2] and [6] are only in the lead. These references need to be in the main body as well as does the referenced text. the lead cannot have have material not supported elsewhere.
 * The lead needs to cover more of the article's material. The Geology, Hydrology, Three Ranges sections are not covered. History is sparsely covered. Too much of the lead dwells on the past 10 years and not enough on the other aspects of the article.

- Peripitus (Talk) 07:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)