Trinity River (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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 9, 2017. ( Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Rivers Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have a feeling the picture is actually the Klamath River upstream of Weitchpec... look in Google Street view, the CA96 bridge over the Klamath, looking upstream... it looks suspiciously like the top image on this page. Shannon ^talk _contribs 04:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, it looks remarkably the same. Here's a link to the Google street view image from the bridge: [1]. Compare to the photo used on this page, [2]. Pfly ( talk) 07:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

There's one dam between Trinity Lake and Lewiston Lake. Trinity Lake is man-made and was formed by damming the Trinity River just above where it flowed into Lewiston Lake. Lewiston Lake is a natural lake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.159.192.10 ( talk) 21:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC) reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trinity River (California)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Coemgenus ( talk · contribs) 13:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I'll review this one over the next few days. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 13:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Checklist

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a ( major aspects): b ( focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

General

• Images are all fine--some of them are quite beautiful. No licensing issues.
• No edit wars, article is stable.
• No POV problems.

Streamflow

• You could lose the phrase "It is worth noting that" without changing the meaning of the sentence. Same with "Also of note is". Just including these facts in an encyclopedia article testifies to their noteworthiness.

Done Shann o n 00:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Native Americans

• It's a little confusing where you say "Their name for the Trinity River was hun' simply meaning "river"." But then in the next sentence "The origin of their name for the Trinity River, Hoopa or Hupa, is uncertain." So, which was the river's name, "hun'" or "Hoopa"?

Fixed. It seemed to be missing a sentence there. Shann o n 00:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Post-Gold Rush settlement

• "The Forest Service was criticized for mismanaging timber lands in the area...." Who criticized them?

I added the names of the environmental groups who filed a lawsuit, and a source. Shann o n 00:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Sources

• Are footnotes 20 and 55 the same source? If so, the notes could be combined.

Fixed. Shann o n 00:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply

This is an excellent article and, once these minor issues are resolved, I look forward to promoting it to Good Article. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 14:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I think that's everything. I'll promote this right away. Thanks for writing it, it was a pleasure to read and review. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 16:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the review! I really appreciate your help. Shann o n 16:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Citation 40 is in error ... Weitspus is a Yurok Village 2600:1010:B180:28B3:5889:8E72:2F27:7E97 ( talk) 18:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply