# Talk:Richland Creek (Nashville, Tennessee)

I noticed that someone had proposed this article Richland Creek (Nashville, Tennessee) for a GA Nomination, and GA status was granted. It just showed up one day as the green plus sign on the article. I thought it strange that I (the author) would have not been a participant in the process. Now I see the article as a "B"class instead. What happened? Was the GA given by mistake?  Was it delisted? I'm looking for the proposer. I have nominated it now myself, in part to trace what happened. Eagledj (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I found that it was promoted to GA by mistake then subsequently reassessed as a "B". I then nominated it myself, but had second thoughts and withdrew the nomination. Eagledj (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Richland Creek (Nashville, Tennessee)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Eagledj (talk · contribs) 23:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: GreenMeansGo (talk · contribs) 14:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
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.
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.
Archive the former. The latter may be getting too nity picky. GMGtalk 00:59, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
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).
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Courtesy ping for @Eagledj: GMGtalk 16:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
When a state or local government submits materials to the federal government, those materials can enter the federal domain under certain conditions. This map was created by Metro Nashville Government as part of a report mandated by the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act, submitted to the State and onward to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The report was prepared solely for governmental use and bears no copyright notice.Eagledj (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Works created after 1977 don't require a copyright notice (see Copyright Act of 1976), and things get weird between 1978 and 1989 (see c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States). Tennessee does not currently release works by state and local governments into the public domain, and the public domain status of federal government works does not extend to sub-national governments (see Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States. GMGtalk 12:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
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. GMGtalk 16:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
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)
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. GMGtalk 13:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
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)
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. GMGtalk 19:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
The article looks much more comprehensive after the past two weeks of work. GMGtalk 00:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
@Eagledj: You think you've got much more in mind to add? GMGtalk 19:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I've discovered a problem. The map with the "named tributaries"  [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Richland_Creek_Watershed,_Nashville,_Tennessee_with_named_tributaries.pd is actually copyrighted, and needs to be deleted. The rationale said "created by EPA", but was actually the Metro water department, same as the other map we deleted. To replace it, I have drawn my own work, overlayed onto a "Open Street map" with attribution. Please check this. It's now on the Commons and in the article. Also, I see no reason to keep the floodstage map with the red boxes. The only reason it's there is that a couldn't find anything else at the time. I have to clean this up, otherwise, I'm good. Eagledj (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I've deleted the file on Commons. I'll give it another full read through to see police up anything that's left to fix. Sorry for the late reply. I didn't see this when it was posted. GMGtalk 20:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)


### Sources
Random F&W report about crayfish in the creek. GMGtalk 20:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
$650k in funding for flood risk management. GMGtalk 20:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Pretty good but shortish coverage esp. pg 46-47. GMGtalk 20:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC) GMGtalk 14:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)