Talk:New River (California)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Southern California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Southern California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Rivers, a WikiProject to systematically present information on rivers. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) |
 |
New River (California) was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.
Date of review: 2007-02-21 |
[edit] Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Mexicali is most probably colloquial, at least I didn't recognize it. Is that Mexican California, the border area? Is it ethnic or geographical, that is not clear.
-
- It is geographical: Mexicali is a city and capital of the Northwestern state of Baja California, Calexico is a city in California accross the border from Mexicali; I've added the term "city of" to clarify this. --Berimbau1 23:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The copied and pasted text of the legislation is unnecessary, sum it up in prose. Not only that but as is it is most likely a copyright violation. The article will never become GA with that in there as it is now. The blocking of the text to the bill also leads to some formatting errors that are probably unbecoming of most GAs.
- 2. Factually accurate?: The section 'Environmental justice' is lacking citations, two is probably not enough for all the assertions of fact in that graf.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: This would imply that the river has always been polluted but the article states that was recognized in 1940, what about 1905-1940? Was the river ever clean?
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Citations are necessary in statements such as this: "Since the passing of NAFTA in the 1990s, industrial manufacturing also became an increasingly significant contributor to pollution. Mexico's relatively lax environmental regulations on manufacturing plants or maquiladoras has allowed these plants to use the New River as an industrial waste drainage system over the years. Mexicali has become a bustling border city with over one hundred maquiladoras."
Another example: "Scores of immigrants are also exposed as they use the river to enter the U.S.; immigrants often evade the Border Patrol because agents will not risk their health by entering the water to detain them."
- 5. Article stability? Appears to be stable.
- 6. Images?: The copyright on the image from Calexico New River Committee may not be accurate. Research and a statement from the author may be required.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --A mcmurray 12:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Good to see. That was kind of nitpicking and had little to do with the fail actually, the other concerns are more important I think. Good luck. : )A mcmurray 23:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
