Talk:Brunswick Falls

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Praseodymium-141 (talk · contribs) 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!! Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 17:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

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

---

Looks decent, but slightly short. I'll check these later.

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 non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Comments

• Ancient history#Indigenous peoples seems to be about Maine, not Brunswick Falls.
  •  Done I took out the first paragraph and slightly reworded the second paragraph.
• Throughout the 19th Century,... - Century should be lowercase.
  •  Done
• Colonel Loammi Baldwin, of Boston - from?
  •  Done of Boston ==> from Boston

Sorry, I ran out of time, that's all of the prose comments so far. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 20:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

More:

• Salmon, Sturgeon, Alewife and shad... - Sturgeon and Alewife should be lowercase.
  •  Done
• Shad, Salmon and Strugeon - same thing.
  •  Done
• Explain make it up the ladder.
  •  Done ==> are able to swim up the steps of the ladder.

There's all the prose comments. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 06:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

More:  Completed

• Is Publius Research reliable?
  • yes, as they cite their sources
• Is energyjustice.net reliable?
  • yes, as they cite their sources
• Is newspapers.com reliable? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 21:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
  • yes, these are actual newspapers articles.

Couldn't find any more issues, so passing. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 09:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

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 AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1835 the run of Brunswick Falls was 1,280 feet (390 m)? Source:
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Jake-jakubowski (talk). Self-nominated at 12:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Brunswick Falls; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - a sentence should be cited
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - Some things should be updated

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - can't find in source
• Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Jake-jakubowski: Good article. I can't find where the source cites the hook, though it's likely because i'm dumb and can't find it. Though shouldn't "During the Industrial Revolution, there was a multitude of cotton mills that harnessed the water-power of the falls, the most notable being the Cabot Mill Manufacturing Company." Also, as interesting it is to know that Brunswick falls was 1980 feet in 1835, I feel as if the article should be updated to the current run and total height of the falls. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Onegreatjoke: The source for the DYK is definitely there. #4 in the references. I too think that "During the Industrial Revolution, there was a multitude of cotton mills that harnessed the water-power of the falls, the most notable being the Cabot Mill Manufacturing Company." is a good subject however the article for Cabot Mill (Cabot Mill) was already used recently, in a ON THIS DATE. As for the current Run and height of the dam, it isnt anywhere available. The only way I could find out is to go to the town and ask but that would be WP:OR. Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 19:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jake-jakubowski: what I meant to say was "During the Industrial Revolution, there was a multitude of cotton mills that harnessed the water-power of the falls, the most notable being the Cabot Mill Manufacturing Company." should have a citation since there wasn't any. However, while I can't find the 1980 feet anywhere in the source listed, I have noticed that it says "on the Brunswick side, the distance was 1,280 feet". Were you meaning to say 1280 instead of 1980 Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke: Good catch! Yes I meant to say 1280, i changed it. Also, I have cited the quote you mentioned, taking out "Cabot Mills".Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 03:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Onegreatjoke? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Approve now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

References