Talk:Kitch-iti-kipi/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 01:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	In lead: The name means "big cold spring" in what language? Clarify.  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Similarly, which Native Americans called it "The Mirror of Heaven"? Do they still?  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC) In 'Raft': When did the CCC construct the raft?  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC) In 'Native American legends', In the second story re: honey, who is "they"? Clarify.  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC) The third story re: tamarack uses passive voice and is unclear who is doing the grinding of bark, etc. Rephrase.  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC) The last para on naming seems like it would fit better elsewhere, as it isn't to do with myths or legends, just etymology.  Done - moved to "Appearances and features" --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Overall, the prose is good and interesting. At times, it seems more guidebook-like than encyclopedic, so watch out for that. I made a few edits to fix that where I saw it most egregiously. Another read-over with that in mind from you would be helpful. Overall, it's a very good article and interesting topic!  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC) @Ganesha811:- All issues have been addressed. Could you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC) After edits, looks good! Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues. Slightly unencyclopedic tone in places but will address that under prose.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	Mostly, the sources are fine, but I'm concerned about Source #2, Exploring the North. While I don't really believe the site is making things up, it appears to be simply a small website with no institutional backing or basis for reliability. Do we have any more information about how the site works / who they are?  Done Exploring the North.com main page I was born and raised in Michigan. The information to me as a Michigander looks correct. I'm a retiree and living in northern Michigan.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Acceptable, especially as this isn't a WP:BLP. Pass. Thanks for the info.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All statements sourced.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio flags a couple of things, but it seems clear they are copying from Wiki rather than the other way around.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Provisional pass. Want to do a little more research before passing for sure. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass. Good level of detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I think the lead image should be changed to a view of the spring itself, rather than a plaque about it. In fact, I'm not convinced the plaque image needs to be in the article at all. The other images are good, but could stand to be spaced throughout the article rather than confined to a gallery.  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC) * Pass, much improved, thanks. :)
	7. Overall assessment.