Talk:Castle Lake (California)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Castle Lake (California) 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. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on January 17, 2008.
February 25, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	Castle Lake (California) is part of WikiProject Lakes, a WikiProject which aims to systematically improve lake-related articles using the tools on the Project page. You are welcome and encouraged to edit the article attached to this page and to join the project.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Red columbine 2 Title 3 Good article nomination on hold 4 GA review

[edit] Red columbine

Red columbine (Aquilegia truncata) is wikilinked to Aquilegia canadensis. They're not the same thing, as different as a blackbird from a thrush in that they're the same genus, different species. Maybe there should be a disambig page for Red columbine, with all the different types of red-flowered aquilegias, both species and cultivars, listed there? 86.134.46.248 (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've unlinked the Red Columbine in this article (Aquilegia truncata), so that it is no longer linked to Red Columbine (Aquilegia canadensis). Thanks for the tip! A disambiguation page sounds like a great idea. NorCal (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title

As the usual disambiguation for lakes is with parentheses (WP:LAKES#Multiple lakes with the same name), I moved this back. -- User:Docu

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of February 23, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Neutral, the lead needs work, and it needs a general copyedit

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Fail, for now

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

The biggest problem is the writing, especially in the lead. In the lead, the writing is choppy, with several small paragraphs, some of which can be merged. Also, it bounces between ideas in some places. A general copyedit and merging of paragraphs should be all it needs. Otherwise, it looks good. Also, there is a POV issue; Castle Lake is a convenient starting place for a wide range of recreational activities., as an example. That is not a fact that it is "convenient" for recreation. Please fix this.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments - I'll be able to work on this in a day or two, when I get back from traveling. NorCalHistory (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Made a first set of edits; I'll be back tomorrow for a final look. NorCalHistory (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Responses re GA reviewer's Notes:

- As suggested, condensed and re-organized lead - now two paragraphs with better flow between the topics, and moved some material to specific section.

- As suggested, removed the sentence described as potentially NPOV.

Let me know if there are further suggestions! NorCalHistory (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's starting to look better, and the leade is much better. Although, there are still some issues with the writing and the POV. I will give you a few examples, if you don't mind;

• At the lake itself, fishing and picnicking, as well as viewing the local plantlife, wildlife and scenery, are the most popular activities -- POV. You could say "are common activities" rather than "the most popular" - check
• When the bowl filled with water, this terminal moraine acted as a natural dam, helping to contain the water in the newly-formed cirque lake.[27] -- The "bowl" would be more encyclopediac as "the bowl-shaped crater". - check
• The "Animal Life" section could also be condensed into two or three paragraphs. - check
• At higher elevations above the lake, and in rocky or more exposed locations, the pine and fir tree forests thin, the trees grow in a more stunted fashion, and shrubs and bushes, such as Green Manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula), Dwarf Mountain Manzanita (Arctostaphylos neuadensis), and Tan Oak (Lithocarpus densiflorus) find areas and niches to grow.[8] -- Something about the beginning about that sentence seems awkward. - re-written, check
• Also, in cool, wet spots near the lake, carnivorous Pitcher Plants (Darlingtonia californica) make an appearance.[52] -- Instead of "make an appearence", it would be more encyclopediac to say "appear" or "occur" - check

Other than those issues, a minor copyedit would make it better. If you want, I can go through and give it a quick copyedit. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 17:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Over to you! I look forward to any further comments/changes you have in mind. NorCalHistory (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is looking much better. I've left a comment on your talk page, so you might want to look it over. Thanks, Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 17:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've made some additional last (minor) changes, and I think that it's ready to be submitted for your final judgment. It has been a pleasure working with you! NorCalHistory (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The writing is of GA standard, although it could be slightly better. Overall, though, it is good.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References and information seem accurite

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Very good job finding so much information for the article

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Seems good, no edit waring

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are good

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The article passes all criteria, and is very good. I am happy to say I can promote this article to GA. Thank you for you hard work in improving this article. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)