This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lees Ferry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Lees Ferry 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: November 28, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to this weblog post Lee's Ferry is sometimes spelt as Lees Ferry or Lee Ferry; Lees Ferry is the official name but the version with an apostrophe is more common. I've added the alternate spellings to the intro but changed other occurrences to Lee's Ferry for consistency. Andy Smith ( talk) 14:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I disagree strongly. Haven't spent a great deal of time at Marble Canyon and the Grand Canyon, although misspelled, "Lees Ferry" is much more common, and is the official name ( http://www.nps.gov/glca/planyourvisit/lees-ferry.htm). I've changed all the Lee's Ferry to Lees Ferry for consistency AND accuracy. But I don't know how to change the Title!? Timbruc007 ( talk) 21:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Is the second photo necessary and/or does it offer anything to the article?
I second that statement. It looks more to me like someone is showing off rather than posting a constructive photo. I say delete it.
71.9.106.65 03:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The mention of a steel wire cable basket for use of park services employees I believe is referring to the structure used by the USGS to maintain the "rating table" for the water measuring station. The rating table is the relationship between river height (measured directly at the site) to flow, which is the measurement of interest.
The phrase "annual flow of the Colorado River" makes no sense. Total annual volume is a metric of intrest and is perhaps what the author meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.163.132 ( talk) 18:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Montanabw ( talk · contribs) 01:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I will review this article and be back with comments soon.
Montanabw
(talk) 01:25, 4 November 2014 (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. | Needs a copyedit for flow, some run on sentences, a couple spots where phrasing is a bit awkward or confusing. Nothing major, but should be given a good copyedit | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Looks pretty decent other than as noted in other sections | |
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. | Too many External links, review per WP:ELNO and see if you can trim a few. | |
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). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
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. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
Initial assessment spotted a few dead links, can you fix these and then I can go on and complete the verification of them? Other short comments in chart above, will add longer comments here if needed; you can also discuss here. Montanabw (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
More to come, fee free to start on what is listed here. Montanabw (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
. Keep on with the copyedits, the source fixes look good. I'm pleased with the work you are doing here! Montanabw (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Did a light copyedit, fixed one place where the ref didn't verify the content. Revert anything you don't like, fix any errors of mine. Trout me if I really screwed up. All is good to me, this article passes! Montanabw (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lee's Ferry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)