Talk:Illecillewaet Glacier/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 01:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will review! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Very nice article. I've made a few small edits that you're free to correct.[1]

Just a couple of comments:

study of the glacier was performed by the Vaux family is described in three different places, under "CPR and Glacier House", "Glaciological studies" and "Retreat".

Could the description and findings of the scientific studies be combined in one place under the "Glaciological studies"?

Just to clarify, are you advising the "Retreat" and "Glaciological studies" sections be consolidated? The Interior (Talk) 19:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a section called "Vaux family" could contain the more persona aspects of the Vaux family and their interest in the glacier with the specifics of their cameras etc.?

Consolidated two sections under heading "Vaux family". The Interior (Talk) 19:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MathewTownsend (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, having been through this with a similar article I was involved with writing, it is worth checking the copyright tagging on Mary Vaux Walcott.jpg again. It was taken in Canada in 1914 by an unknown author; there is no evidence of it being published in the US until it was placed on the Smithsonian website. An anonymous, unpublished work in the US from 1914 is usually, I think, in copyright for 120 years after its creation, so would still be in copyright. For CrevasseIllecillewaetGlacier.jpg, you can argue that it was published in the US in 1902 by being circulated for sale, but it does still need a Canadian PD tag (again, fine, because of its age). Have a look at Illecillewaet Glacier, Glacier Park, BC, 1909.jpg for the formatting of the required Canadian tag. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Canada added to second image, I've asked for clarification over at Commons for the Mary Vaux image. It's mentioned at the Smithsonian website that they publish their PD images through flickr, so, the fact that they haven't for this image might not bode well. Or they haven't got around to it. Hopefully a copyright wizard at Commons will clear this up. The Interior (Talk) 19:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Changes coming, please hold for one more day :) ... The Interior (Talk) 16:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Editor has not returned to the article. Article is failed. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

further comments

Since the data re the glacier's size, retreat, is at least 10 years ago, should you clarify that it's no longer being followed closely where you have the statistics?

Parks Canada has a mandate to study environmental changes within its parks, so we can assume that their research is ongoing. As with any academic research, there is a significant lag between data-gathering and publication. So there may be several studies that cover the last ten years but have not been published. It would be difficult to comment authoritatively on the current state of research on the glacier, so to avoid WP:OR I'm opposed to reaching any conclusions. None of my sources mention anything about research being discontinued, and with the current vogue for academic research related to climate change, I imagine that research will continue. For instance, through email correspondence with Dr. Dan McCarthy I understand his lichen work to be ongoing. The Interior (Talk) 20:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"As grandson Henry Vaux Jr. was paraphrased, "there are two significant changes over the course of the past 100 years. One [is] ... the retreat of the glaciers. The other changes are man-made such as the Trans-Canada Highway. Otherwise, he said, much is still the same due to the short growing seasons in the mountains." - all quotes need citations (even though this is a quote of a paraphrase)

Are the two quotes both paraphrases and are they from the same source? I think you should reword the paraphrases and make clearer who is doing the paraphrasing in the text - prefer that you reword as quoting a paraphrase is confusing.

The first was the article's author, Alex Cooper, paraphrasing Vaux, Jr. I can see how this might be confusing, so I rewrote this in my own words and used Cooper as the source. The second is a direct quote from Vaux, Jr., and is cited to its source. I lean towards leaving that as is - it's a short quote, and it reinforces what is written above. The Interior (Talk) 21:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done!

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

c. no original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
no edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass!

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]