Talk:Burke Canyon

Burke Canyon 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: September 22, 2017. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Idaho Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Idaho (assessed as Low-importance).

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Burke Canyon/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 22:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drown Soda: I will review this article. To start off, the article looks good so far. There are a few phrases that need rewording to pass the no-copyvios criteria. I will review the text and references later. epicgenius (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b ( lists ): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism ): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have suitable captions ):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Lead/Infobox

• In the infobox, for "Length", you don't need to use roads for measurements. In fact, unless the roads are perfectly straight, you will end up with inaccurate measurements. The figure you gave is pretty precise. You could just cite Google Maps or a topographical survey.
• In the infobox, is there a source for the elevation?
• Burke Canyon is the canyon of the Burke-Canyon Creek, which runs through the northernmost part of Shoshone County, Idaho, U.S., in the northeastern Silver Valley - This, on its own, is awkward. I feel like this should be two sentences, or just reworded more nicely. For instance, "Burke Canyon is the canyon of the Burke-Canyon Creek, which runs through the northernmost part of Shoshone County, Idaho, within northeastern Idaho's Silver Valley."
• there are now several ghost towns - This should be "Burke Canyon now contains several ghost towns", because it matches with "A hotbed" at the beginning of the sentence.
• Settlers arrived in Burke Canyon (which takes its name from the town of Burke) in 1884 after silver, lead, and zinc were found in mines throughout. - This would also be better as two sentences. "Burke Canyon takes its name from the town of Burke. Settlers arrived in the canyon in 1884 after silver, lead, and zinc were found in mines throughout."
• Between 1886 and 1890 [...] conflict between miners and mine owners. - You should fix run-on sentence.
• late-twentieth century - "late twentieth century" (without a hyphen) should work.
• The canyon is considered part of the Coeur d'Alene basin's Superfund sites by the Environment Protection Agency - I suggest changing it so the EPA is the subject. Also, normally, singular geographical features are either "one of the Superfund sites", or "part of a Superfund site". So "The Environmental Protection Agency considers the canyon to be part of the Coeur d'Alene basin's Superfund sites".

Settlement

• Gold was initially discovered in the early 1860s in the mountains to the north of the Snake River basin. Silver, copper, and other minerals were subsequently discovered. - This is just a question, but are there any specific dates? Or people?
• Significant amounts of silver, zinc, and lead were discovered by miners in Burke Canyon in 1884 at the Tiger Mine - This is awkward. How about this: "In 1884, miners discovered significant amounts of silver, zinc, and lead at the Tiger Mine in Burke Canyon".
• USD$35,000 - Typically it's either just "US$" or "USD". Using both is redundant.
• When was the Tiger Mine sold to Glidden? Any specific dates?
• Beginning in 1887, Glidden constructed - If he began constructing in 1887, it's easier to just say, "In 1887, Glidden began constructing".
• leading to the establishment of the Canyon Creek Railroad, which had its first shipment to Wallace on December 12, 1887 - This is another run-on and should be split.
• had already been established in 1886 - In this case, "already" is unnecessary, since it is known that 1886 precedes 1887.

More later. epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius, I've made some alterations to the syntax per your suggestions above. To answer your question about specific dates/persons involved in the gold discoveries, there are no concrete details, at least that I have been able to find, except that miners began to flood Idaho in the 1860s after gold was struck at various locations in the mid-southern region of the state. In response to the infobox details, based on Google Maps, the canyon itself as it runs within the Idaho boundary is 14 miles in length, though that's an approximation (the canyon is quite windy itself). I'm unable to find topographical survey sources on the canyon to give an exact number. I will look for a source for the elevation claim; I am not sure how that number came to be—it may have been here prior to my working on the article. --Drown Soda (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More:

• I just realized that this article includes USD35,000 but also $7 million further down. Anyway, what I was going for is a space between "USD" and the number, i.e. USD 35,000.
• at the Frisco mine in Frisco - This is a bit repetitive. I know the names of the town and the mine sometimes don't necessarily correlate, but in this case I think 99% of readers wouldn't mind if you just said "Frisco Mine". If you're going for FA, someone may bring this up again, but for now I think we can eliminate the repetition.
• causing the four-story mill to explode, killing six people - I suggest "causing the four-story mill to explode and kill six people". You already have one clause with an "-ing" verb in the sentence. The second is just not grammatically correct.
• From there, union miners who had successfully shut down both the Frisco and the Gem mines, travelled to the Bunker Hill mining complex near Wardner, to the west, and closed down that facility as well - You should consider "From there, union miners who had successfully shut down both the Frisco and the Gem mines travelled west, to the Bunker Hill mining complex, and closed down that facility as well" (the comma after "traveled west" is optional but is correct either way). Although the comma after Frisco and Gem mines serves as clarification, it also makes the sentence grammatically incorrect. Also, Americans usually use "traveled" with one L.
• In both disputes, issues included pay, hours of work, the right of miners to belong to the union, and the mine owners' use of informants and undercover agents. Violence committed by union miners was answered with a brutal response in 1892 and in 1899. - This doesn't have an inline citation. However, you can just use the existing citations for the 1892 and 1899 strikes if they support this text.
• Two major avalanches struck the canyon in the twentieth century: One on February 4 - "one" is lowercase.
• which buried twenty-five people, killing all - "which buried and killed twenty-five people"

More later. I have to head to class. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, picking up:

• After another fire wreaked further havoc on the canyon in July 1923, the Northern Pacific railroad considered discontinuing railway service through the canyon after damage to the depot; the railroad also cited increased automobile traffic as a reason for discontinuing the line - You may want to clarify that the fire damaged the depot. It may also be a good idea to split these two sentences. For instance: "The Northern Pacific railroad considered discontinuing railway service through the canyon after another fire wreaked further havoc on the canyon and damaged the railroad's depot in July 1923.Tthe railroad also cited increased automobile traffic as a reason for discontinuing the line"

Post-millennium

• Post-millennium is an unusual title for this header, given that this talks about post-1983 happenings.
• leaving the town of Burke and several of the surrounding communities ghost towns - Awkward wording. I suggest "and the town of Burke and several surrounding communities were left as ghost towns" or something similar.
• As of December 31, 2012 - The associated reference doesn't mention the reference's publication date. Additionally, does this date have to be exact? Would "As of December 2012" work?

Geography

No issues of concern.

Communities

• nearby - in this context, it should be "near". Or this can be written as, around 300 people lived in the canyon or nearby.

Environmental concerns - Mining effects

• Over a century of mining in Burke Canyon resulted in various metals leaching into Canyon Creek - This is awkward; how about "As a result of over a century of mining in Burke Canyon, various metals leached into Canyon Creek"?
• contamination of the Couer d'Alene River, the most heavy metal-contaminated river in the world - Another weird sentence, due to "heavy metal". I suggest "contamination of the Couer d'Alene River, which has the most heavy metal contamination of any river in the world".

Waste disposal

• Some local residents - "some residents" would do just fine. If they lived in the canyon, they are locals by definition.

References

• Refs 3, 4, and 21 are PDFs and need page numbers.
• Ref 14, "Hecla Mining - 2012 Exploration Report - Silver Valley", is a primary source. This is OK, but you should preferably note this in the text that it is citing. For instance, "As of December 31, 2012, Hecla reported that it had invested..."
• By National Research Council, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Committee on Superfund Site Assessment and Remediation in the Coeur d' Alene River Basin - if this is the author, you can remove the "By".

Putting on hold for 7 days. epicgenius (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: thanks for this; I believe I've addressed each of the above comments (I worked out the first batch when you posted them a week or so ago). Let me know if something else stands out. --Drown Soda (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drown Soda: Just one thing: in "Community", though several of are now - you can remove "of". Otherwise, this is ready for GA status. epicgenius (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: oops, typo! Thanks again for reviewing this article. I visited this canyon over the past summer and became enamored of it. I ended up developing the article sometime back in September (it was in really poor shape before) but it took awhile before it got picked up for review, so I almost forgot about it. --Drown Soda (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drown Soda: Thanks for bearing with me and making the changes. I appreciate all the additions you've made. I'll just go and pass this article now. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]