# Talk:John Oliver Memorial Sewer Plant

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Oliver Memorial Sewer Plant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 16:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be taking a look at this article for the January 2022 GAN backlog drive. If you haven't already signed up, please feel free to join in! Although QPQ is not required, if you're feeling generous, I also have a list of GA nominations of my own right here.


### Infobox and lede
Link phosphorus


### Background
#### Environmental need
Link Danbury, Connecticut
to upgrade their waste treatment facilities to remove 98 percent Any way to rephrase to limit repetition of the "to" preposition?


#### John Oliver
I don't think the link on "tangential diatribe" is what you think it is; it links to a speech disorder
Commas around while airing a segment on jury selection in the United States
Link YouTube


### Sewage plant
#### Building
Sentence construction makes it hard to tell who or what, exactly, set a price of $102 million
No comma after "Regional Water Pollution Control Authority"


#### Cost
Good


#### Functions
Link The News-Times


### References
Good


### General comments
Images are properly licensed and relevant
No stability concerns in the revision history
Copyvio score looks good
Putting on hold to allow nominator to address comments. Feel free to ping me with questions, and let me know when you're finished! — GhostRiver 00:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@GhostRiver: thanks so much for the speedy review! I think I got it all :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for making those changes on your end! I made one small change per MOS:NUMERAL, which specifies that numbers should not be mixed numeric/spelled out in the same sentence, and I think this looks good to go! — GhostRiver 16:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@GhostRiver: awesome! thank you so much again! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 16:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The main prohibitor on FA status is the lack of information about the plant's own operations. If reliable sources could note how many people the plant employs and serves, how it's constructed, and other notes about daily operation, it'd have a much better shot at FA. Right now, it leans too heavily on public image and controversy surrounding the plant (i.e. John Oliver), which is due weight, but it doesn't pass muster on a comprehensiveness requirement. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)