Talk:Crystal Springs Dam/GA2
Add topicLatest comment: 10 months ago by SnowyRiver28 in topic GA review
GA review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: 3602kiva (talk · contribs) 18:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: SnowyRiver28 (talk · contribs) 02:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Mostly ok, though there is clarification needed on the phrase
"The dam is also classified with an "Extremely High" downstream hazard rating by the California Department of Water Resources in the event of a breach."
Expanding a little to say what specifically is at risk downstream would fix this.
Resolved - Also, could you please clarify on the comment the previous reviwer made regarding the dam's height. Here's their message:
For the most part, this is well written. I did a little light copyediting a little while ago. The one thing that has me confused is: "The structure was completed in 1889 at a height of 120 feet (37 m).[1] However, a wet winter in 1889-1890 caused the dam to overflow, leading to an addition to bring the total height of the dam to 145 feet (44 m), making it the tallest dam in the United States at the time" Earlier you said that the tallest dam in the US was 95 feet, so didn't this beat that at the initial 120 foot height? This makes it sound like it wasn't the tallest until reaching 145 feet.
Resolved
- Mostly ok, though there is clarification needed on the phrase
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- This is mostly ok. A citation for the claim
"Schussler ensured that each block of the dam was poured with concrete made to the exact proportions of his mix specifications: namely, a water-to-cement ratio of 0.45 was maintained across the project."
would be good. Resolved
- This is mostly ok. A citation for the claim
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- 18% highest on Earwig, which is all company names, titles etc.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Looks like images have been fixed up since last review. No issues here.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Images look mostly good, although the one in the main infobox could do with a caption. Resolved
- Images look mostly good, although the one in the main infobox could do with a caption.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Issues fixed from the first review and from this second review and article ready.
- Pass or Fail:
- I'll put this on hold for 7 days so you can have a look at the above issues. Let me know if you have any questions or need any help:) SnowyRiver28 (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback @SnowyRiver28! I've gone ahead and made the revised changes; note that I fixed the issue regarding the dam's height earlier in the year in response to that piece of feedback; it now directly states that it was the tallest in the US at a height of 120 fee - hopefully that should make the statement easier to understand.
- Please let me know if there is anything else needed from my end! 3602kiva (💬) 17:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.