Talk:Nescopeck Creek

Suggestions for GA without being a GA review

To earn GA, all the references need to be filled out. No bare urls, and add publishing information to everything, which is currently rather lacking. Also, some of the templates seem to be broken, so those need fixing. Chris857 (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The references need more work, but I've made a start on them. Until the references are cleaned up, this article is not ready for GA. Folklore1 (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added some critical details to the references that will be helpful in finding and verifying info at a later date, when some of the online locations may have changed. For citations to multiple page sources, I've added page numbers. Also, author and publisher. Folklore1 (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have two suggestions as well.

(1) Citations to long PDFs should include page numbers. Otherwise, readers have a hard time finding the place in the PDF that verifies a particular claim. In this case, all of the many claims supported by the 148-page Nescopeck Creek Watershed Stewardship Report need citations to specific pages. You can use a short-form citation like "Stewardship Report, p. 59" inside a pair of ref tags for each of these if you give the full bibliographic information somewhere, perhaps in a "Works cited" section below the "References" section.

(2) Every river or creek article needs a map. If you can find or make a course map or watershed map, that would be great. In lieu of that, you can easily add a locator map to a river geobox, which automatically places a red dot at the river mouth by keying on the mouth coordinates entered in the geobox. You have used a river infobox (not identical to a geobox), which is fine, but if you are interested in the locator map possibility, you can see an example in the Larrys Creek article, which is featured. If this doesn't make sense, just ping me on my talk page, and I'll be glad to help. Finetooth (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Finetooth, I added a locator map to the article but (as you can tell) it doesn't look that good. Any suggestions? ^King Jakob _C2 21:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to make the locator maps function properly in an infobox. I always use a geobox for streams. I'd be happy to set up a geobox in one of my sandboxes and then transfer it to this article, if you like. Just let me know. Finetooth (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That would be great. Thanks for all your hard work ^King Jakob _C2 22:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. I've installed the basic geobox with a locator map. I'd like to do some fine tuning, but I have to leave now to attend a July 4 picnic. It appears to me that the creek's source, as defined by the United States Geological Survey, which I've cited, is in Dennison Township rather than Hanover Township. If you click on the source coordinates and then look at the Acme Mapper topo map, you'll see what I mean. More later. Finetooth (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I checked both cited sources for the Hanover Township claim, then saw that the odd one was published in 1832. The more recent one, the long PDF, says Dennison Township, confirmed by the topo map. I used this instance to set up the "Works cited" plus short-form citation system that I mentioned. Tracking down the exact page numbers supporting the many other claims will be tedious, and I leave that to you. :-)

I would suggest that you consider being somewhat more selective in presenting statistics and details. Keeping everything for the main stem is probably OK, but I think most readers will glaze over when reading details about the tributaries; e.g. "However, the Cranberry Creek watershed contains 6.5 percent barren land, the Black Creek watershed contains 14 percent, and the Stony Creek watershed contains 30 percent." What to keep and what to omit is up to you, but I'd be inclined to pare things down a bit.

I'd be careful about how I presented the discharge statistics. The long PDF says they are fairly dependable only for the upper watershed, consisting of 49 square miles (130 km²) above Nescopeck Creek B. That's only about one-third of the whole watershed. Finetooth (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd think of the information on tributaries as narrow topics merged into an article about a larger topic (the main stem). I'll get to the hard tedious work of tracking down claims today or tomorrow. ^King Jakob _C2 19:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nescopeck Creek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: EricEnfermero (talk · contribs) 21:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll be more than happy to take on the review of this submission. Thanks to the nominator for the great deal of work which has undoubtedly gone into this article. I will complete a thorough readthrough and leave specific feedback. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 21:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Good evening! As I noted before, hard work is evident in this submission. I'm just running into some problems with organization and referencing. Both of these issues may be related to the intricate detail present in this article. There are some syntax issues like duplicate words and wordy sentences, but those can easily be addressed once we work out these heavier referencing and structure issues.

Spot checks of references

I'm having trouble locating where some of the listed sources support the assertions in the article. Some examples:

• In several places, references to the Nescopeck Creek Watershed Stewardship Report (a large PDF) include page numbers, but more than thirty references to the document have no page numbers. This makes much of the article difficult to verify.

• Out of the 49 times the PDF is cited, 45 cites now use specific page numbers. ^King Jakob _C2 13:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

All of the "Stewardship Report" citations have page numbers now, but check to see that they're pointed to the right page. I corrected some that had been pointed to the wrong page.Folklore1 (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• In the lead, it says that portions of the creek have diffculty ratings of Class I to III, but I read the source as saying that each part of the creek has a rating somewhere from Class I to Class III.

•  Fixed ^King Jakob _C2 13:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• The last sentence in the lead seems to be sourced to a Google Maps main page URL. It shows me a picture of my home state, but nothing about Pennsylvania. I can't find where that sentence appears in the body though, so it might just be best taken out. Is it significant to say that there is only one community there other than townships (which I think of as communities)?

•  Removed ^King Jakob _C2 13:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• For the amount of information and detail in the body of the article, the lead doesn't summarize as much of the article's contents as I would expect. You might pay some attention to the order of information presented in the lead versus the order in the body. The Watershed, Biology, Hydrology and Geology sections are pretty large, but they are not well represented in the lead.

History

• Lehigh Path is sometimes written with both words capitalized and sometimes with "path" in lowercase.

•  Fixed ^King Jakob _C2 13:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• There is information about the 1700s in both the Prehistory and Recent history sections.

• I changed the section headings to "Native American inhabitation" and "European inhabitation". ^King Jakob _C2 13:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Geology

• "Another soil series in the Nescopeck Creek watershed is the..." - this phrase appears at the beginning of four consecutive paragraphs. With the general reader in mind, I think it would be better to have a short list of the soil types and then some explanation of the practical impact of those soils. Most of us won't know enough about soil to decipher why those types are good, bad or indifferent. That section is not meaningful in its current form.

• I cut a lot of soilcruft from that section. ^King Jakob _C2 13:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hydrology

• Similar issues as the Geology section. Lots of information on pH and toxic levels of metals, but I can't find any information about why that matters or what effects it would have on the creek. Acidity is mentioned as early as the third sentence in the lead, but there is no explanation of its practical effects. That seems like it could be a major aspect of the subject.

•  Partly done - Some of the toxicity information is placed in context. ^King Jakob _C2 13:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll place this nomination on hold for seven days while we work through the above issues. Will post more feedback (straightforward stuff) once we work out these bigger issues. Thanks! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 03:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I made a few tweaks; I think this passes now. I appreciate the additional context you provided for some of the detail. For GA purposes, I think there's at least enough context so that the details aren't as overwhelming. I trimmed down the soil info just a bit more and reorganized the lead a little bit, taking out most of the lead refs, as the lead shouldn't introduce new info. From here, you might work on the History section more. The timeline presented there doesn't flow too easily, but I think it's okay for GA status. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 03:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Tweaks made by nominator and reviewer during review.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead expanded by nominator.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Some intricate detail removed by nominator.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing. Good work!

Thanks for your work and for a good read! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 03:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nescopeck Creek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031063055/http://www.usgwarchives.org/maps/pa/county/luzerne/usgs/luzerne.jpg to http://www.usgwarchives.org/maps/pa/county/luzerne/usgs/luzerne.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130831230909/http://fishingcreeksportsmanassn.org/Downloads/conservation_plan.pdf to http://www.fishingcreeksportsmanassn.org/Downloads/conservation_plan.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)