Talk:Cerrón Grande Reservoir/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: JPxG (talk · contribs) 23:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll do my best! jp×g 23:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
For this one I will use the same scale as I do for all my reviews.
Checked and verified to be good, no issue.
Not an applicable concern.
This thing needs to be fixed or clarified.
This thing has been fixed or clarified.
This thing should be fixed, but I won't hold up a "pass" for it.
Huh?
Preliminary notes[edit]
Copyvio[edit]
- Earwig's copyvio detector turned up virtually nothing, other than the quote "[h]eavy metals, banned insecticides, cyanides, fecal bacteria, and toxic algae" being in another webpage.
-
The phrase "one of the most contaminated bodies of fresh water in Central America
" in the lead is nearly identical to the same phrase as used in this 2010 article.
-
The phrase "The reservoir was formed from 1973 to 1976 with the construction of the Cerrón Grande Hydroelectric Dam.
" (written in March 2021) is quite similar to one of the sources, https://www.visitcentroamerica.com/en/visitar/lake-suchitlan/, apparently from 2017 (as best I can tell) which says "Suchitlán Lake or Cerrón Grande Reservoir, was created in the winter of 1976 with the construction of the Cerrón Grande Hydroelectric Power Plant
".
Stability / POV[edit]
- The article hasn't had any disputes in its (admittedly short) history, but it is hard to imagine people getting mad about this.
- I don't see anything POV-wise that gives me pause.
Media[edit]
- All media are of good quality, related to the topic, and freely licensed.
Focus / scope / coverage / completeness[edit]
- Covers the creation of the reservoir, its geography and history, its environmental situation, and what it's used for. Difficult to come up with more that's relevant to the subject that isn't covered.
Prose / MoS[edit]
- Prose is generally well-written. I've done some minor copyedits for awkward phrasing and minor grammatical errors.
-
Who is Alejandro Coto? When did he coin the word?
Ref check[edit]
- Ref 1 (Chalatenango, Cerron Grande): Looks to be the official website of the state of Chalatenango. Supports what it's used to cite.
- Ref 2 (Visit Centro America): Run by the Agencia de Promoción Turística de Centroamérica, which is obviously a pro-tourism organization (and not sure what editorial control they have over the site) but it's being cited as a source for stuff that is supported by other sources, or basic geographic facts.
- Ref 3 (El Salvador Info): a website managed by "Eddie Galdamez, a Salvadoran living in the Cabañas department of El Salvador." On their "About" page, there is a policy for contacting them about errors, so there is at least the implication of editorial judgment. Everything supported by a cite to ref 3 shows up on this page.
- Ref 4 (Chalatenango, Lake Suchitlan): Reliable source (same as Ref 1) and everything cited to this is backed up in it.
-
Ref 5 (Proyecto sin Historia): This is a Wordpress blog, and not an acceptable source per WP:RSP. It should not be used in the article at all.
- Ref 6 (IEES): Source seems reliable, all statements are backed up by it.
- Ref 7 (Buckalew p. 7): The flow rate of the Lempa River out of the reservoir was incorrect, so I fixed it. Reliable source, all statements cited to it are verified.
- Ref 8 (Perspectives): This doesn't seem like an excellent source to me, but it isn't load-bearing (nearly everything that's cited to it is also cited to more reliable sources, except one opinion which I have commented out).
- Ref 9 (Buckalew p. 5): Reliable (see Ref 7), was being used to cite one sentence that wasn't on page 5 of the document, so I removed that cite.
- Ref 10 (Buckalew p. A-8): This one is fine.
- Ref 11 (Estrategias de Descontaminación): This checks out fine, but I think could probably used to support more in the article.
- Ref 12 (Estudio Global de la Sedimentación): I could not verify this one myself, but it is only used in one inline citation, which is also backed up by two other sources.
- Ref 13 (Buckalew p. i): Checks out.
Conclusion[edit]
This article could certainly stand to be expanded. Lots of the sources used here seem to say quite a lot about the hydrology and ecology of the reservoir, which isn't covered in the article. Nevertheless, it provides a fairly comprehensive overview of the reservoir's history, status and et cetera. I am going to pass it. jp×g 09:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)