Talk:Richland Creek (Nashville, Tennessee)/GA1: Difference between revisions

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

Nominator: Eagledj (talk · contribs) 23:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: GreenMeansGo (talk · contribs) 14:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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):

   Collolqual language like “far from a complete answer” is not appropriate. The language around the coordinates under geography needs somehow redone. We don’t break the fourth wall to speak directly to readers (click here for more information).

   It’s not clear why we like to meander into content that isn’t really about the creek. Going into whether the 1970 report was serving public interest, what a 305(b) Report is, that the consent decree went to the US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

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

   The Byrd source is broken. The Harless source doesn’t seems to mention Richland Creek at all.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Having written on Cumberland-things before (ex1, ex2, ex3), I’m surprised there’s not really information on things like fish/wildlife, plants, invasive species geology, etc. Seems like a lot of content treating the creek as part of the city, and not necessarily as a body of water in-and-of-iself.

   Looking at the Metro Water Services 2016 report cited, it covers things like bacteria, but also algal growth, sediment, structural disturbances (e.g., rock walls, dredging).

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):

   File:Richland Creek, Nashville, Tennessee Watershed showing cities Belle Meade and Forest Hills.jpeg seems very unlikely to actually be public domain. It isn’t a work of the Federal Government; it’s a work of Nashville and Davidson County submitted to the goverment. We would need evidence that this image was released into the PD by Nashville/Davidson, and also the source of where the satellite map came from for the overlay, since these govts almost certainly did not originally produce the satellite photo. Given that there are so many maps avaiable from places like USGS, this would not meet WP:NFCC #1.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Just curious, it looks like there may be a dam at the north end of the Belle Meade Country Club. A low head dam at McCabe Golf Course was removed in 2014. I wonder what’s up with the Country club dam that appears to still be there, assuming there’s any information available. GMG^talk 16:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The country club was unhappy by its low water flow on its impound of Richland Creek. The creek dries up in certain months of the year. Over several decades, four dams have been created along its course to deepen the water. The one you mentioned is the largest. These has helped the situation, but at a price: the dams prevent the flow of gravel and silt downstream, requiring the organization to dredge the creek periodically to clear it. Eagledj (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It’d be too convenient if this kind of information were covered more by things like local news. But it is a minor body of water. So I guess we’re lucky we have what we get. GMG^talk 13:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I began working on this this article in 2015 when it was a one-line stub. I had not seen it in years until this GA thing came up. I’m concerned that it might not pass the rigors it faces, execially reading your 3 example articles. I’d like a chance to revisit it and strengthen it. I need a month. If my map fails copyright, I’ll have to create a new one as well. Thoughts? Eagledj (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They government reports seem to have plenty of maps to choose from, though some of them are probably too specific for the kind of use you’re looking for. But as long as it’s got USGS on it, it’s usually good, unless they’ve contracted out for their graphics, which isn’t very much like them. GMG^talk 19:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]