Talk:Kimball Island

Kimball Island has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 17, 2022	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 10, 2022	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 11, 2021.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 2000, the Sacramento County Policy Planning Commission decided that humans would never be allowed to live on Kimball Island again?

Current status: Good article

Islands

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that in 2000, the Sacramento County Policy Planning Commission decided that humans would never be allowed to live on Kimball Island again? Source: "Kimball Island to become wetland habitat". The Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, California. 2000-06-01. p. 80. Retrieved 2021-11-17 – via Newspapers.com.

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/17 People

5x expanded by JPxG (talk). Self-nominated at 06:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

New enough and large enough expansion. QPQ present. Hook fact checks out and is in source. No textual issues. Wikilinked Sacramento County in the hook as well—it needed it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To T:DYK/P3

Inclusion of SI unit[edit]

Hello User:JPxG, you reverted an edit where I included the SI unit meter in this article as per MOS:UNIT, prior to or after thanking me! I accept the thanks, but why revert? Thanks Avi8tor (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Avi8tor: It's kind of an edge case; while I usually agree with the addition of conversion templates (and I appreciate someone having taken the effort to format one), in this specific instance it didn't seem necessary. The fact that it's betweeen yards and meters means that it's going to be 600 either way; and on top of that, it was in the middle of a quote from a source, so it feels to me like it'd be incorrect to change the text unless the change was bracketed (per MOS:QUOTE). Alternatively, we could come up with some abstruse way to reframe the entire sentence to avoid this, but it seems like way too much trouble when the number doesn't even change between the two units. jp×g 13:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: I agree it's an edge case, the reason I do this is because I live in a country that is metric and need the metric unit, the same applies to millions of readers in many English speaking countries worldwide where anyone born after about 1960 has no idea what a foot or yard is, which is why it's necessary to have both as stated in MOS:UNIT. 600 yards is most probably a rounded estimation, so having both helps someone in say Australia or South Africa! They might even think... Wow, I didn't realize yards and metres are a similar size, which they are, it would be appreciated I'm sure, by many readers. Avi8tor (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kimball Island/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eviolite (talk · contribs) 02:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article within the week. eviolite (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Apologies for the (now-just-over-one-week-sorry!!) wait! Comments follow.

General/lead[edit]

WP:ORDER - sdesc, then hatnote, then date style, then infobox
- Y Done. jp×g 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the link to Suisun Bay per WP:HATEXTRA (actually, I would err on removing the hatnote altogether since Hammond Island doesn't even redirect or link here)
- Y Done. jp×g 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Expand the lead a bit - should be more than 3 sentences for a page of this size. (At least mention the county/state/country for people unaware.)
- Y Done. jp×g 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid refs in the lead especially not for basic geographic data like this (though I do note the info about the river delta is not in the body; should be added there)
- Y Done. jp×g 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for infobox. Coords don't even need citations IIRC
- Y Done. jp×g 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing (historical newspapers and maps) is good enough - though ideally be consistent with your via=s.
- Y Done. jp×g 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, {{Infobox mapframe}} would be easier and better IMO rather than the 3-stack
- Y Done. jp×g 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geography[edit]

re Lobree Island: rather than singling one out might be better to note, as stated in the source, that there are many small islands between Sherman and Kimball unmarked on USGS maps.
- Y Done. jp×g 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe more intuitive to write "0 ft (0 m)" as "sea level" (to avoid redundant converting)? Not a big deal so just a suggestion.
- Y Done. jp×g 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wildlife mitigation: is this Environmental mitigation? If so, link it.
- Y Done. jp×g 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link Antioch, California, Los Angeles Times, and Contra Costa County.
- Y Done. jp×g 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Be clear that the "/meters" is not in the original source.
- Y Done. jp×g 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

"The earliest reference to Kimball Island is an 1850 survey map of the San Francisco Bay area made by Cadwalader Ringgold, on which it is shown and labeled "Hammond Island". There is no relation to the Hammond Island, further downstream in Suisun Bay." sounds a bit like OR to me - I don't think you can definitely say it is the earliest reference. I also don't see the other Hammond Island on the map and don't think it needs to be mentioned as a result.
- Y Done (although the Ringgold map does call it "Hammond Island", so I think it should be noted that it's unrelated to the other Hammond Island). jp×g 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delink second instance of barley. Also add a comma after "By 1871" and consider changing the colon to a semicolon.
- Y Done. jp×g 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, add [] around the conversion since it is not in the original text
- Y Done. jp×g 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see where it says the carp was tasty (though I only skimmed the source) and I don't think it's really necessary at all.
- Y Done. jp×g 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In general I'm pretty uncomfortable with these qualifiers that aren't explicit in the source: again with the striper fishing being "good". I also don't think this is necessary either as it lists a ton of other islands in the area and is certainly inconsequential to the history of the island as a whole.
Similarly, I don't know if just including random names is necessary at all if there is no further information about them. Any newspaper clippings around them telling at least what these people did (e.g. for work, since that would be relevant to land use)?
- ? Unfortunately, I couldn't find any information apart from what's here; most of the reason these people are mentioned in the article is because it shows that there was human habitation there. It'd be very good if there were more to go on, but alas. jp×g 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any info on how the 1967 plan failed?
- ? None that I could find, sadly. jp×g 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
{{Convert}} 104 acres to metric.
- Y Done. jp×g 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the last short sentence to a previous one. Should probably also mention that these were wildfires, not random house fires.
- Y Done. jp×g 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Holding, see above. eviolite (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Reminder about this nomination - it's almost a week old at this point without any changes (and the backlog drive is ending) - I hope this can get to GA status, shouldn't take much. eviolite (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I really did just deadass forget about this. I am running some errands right now but I'll be back later tonight. jp×g 01:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG:? eviolite (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it has now been 1 month since the review started, three and a half weeks since it was put on hold, two and a half weeks since the nominator has reponded, and one week since I left a talk page comment, so I will have to fail this review. No objection to renomination if all of these issues are cleaned up. eviolite (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eviolite: He's alive... and he's editing... I've incorporated thec hanges mentioned above. If you want, I can open a second GA nomination. jp×g 01:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eviolite: What's up :) jp×g 22:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I'd closed the review a few months ago so don't think I can pass it on the same review; if you still want me to review it, open a new nomination and I'll try to get to it (though I've been quite busy with IRL stuff over the past few months..) eviolite (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG:, forgot to ping eviolite (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eviolite: Have renominated, here. jp×g 02:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kimball Island/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eviolite (talk · contribs) 19:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I'll look at this soon.. eviolite (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick update @JPxG: still quite busy IRL, will try to start in the next few days but it might take some more time. Sorry about that. eviolite (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me -- no rush :) jp×g 00:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Sorry for the massive delay JPxG – real life caught up to me – but I looked over the article, am satisfied with the resolutions to previous comments, did some spotchecks which were fine, and did a few minor copyedits. I am happy with promoting it to GA now; nice work! eviolite (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]