Talk:West Creek (Pennsylvania)

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Cwmhiraeth in topic GA Review


GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 07:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

First reading

edit
  • There are too many short or even single sentence paragraphs.
  • Some of the prose is a bit "clunky". For example these two sentences could be combined, - "Shortly afterwards, it exits Sugarloaf Township.[3] Upon leaving Sugarloaf Township ..."
  • You could mention which side the tributaries flow in from.
  • What is the significance of the level of aluminium in the water?
  • The paragraph starting "In 1799" contains a large number of short sentences, some of which could be joined together for better flow of prose.
  • "The bridge was moved to South Branch Roaring Creek when it was sold to H. H. Knoebel in 1936." - Was the bridge sold or the land sold?
  • "Approximately 60% of the taxa are Ephemeroptera, 10% each are Plecoptera, and approximately 5% are Trichoptera." - You might like to add the common names for these taxa.
  • It would be helpful to explain what the Shannon Diversity Index and the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index are, and the significance of the figures.
  • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article and only contain information mentioned elsewhere. In the lead you mention the length of the creek but do not mention this in the body of the text.
  • You could explain what "riparian buffering" means.

GA criteria

edit
  • The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose, grammar, structure and layout. 
  • The article uses several reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.  
  • The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.  
  • The article is neutral.  
  • The article is stable, having been created by the nominator in May 2014 and having been edited by few other editors.  
  • The single images is relevant and has a suitable caption. It was created by the nominator and is properly licensed.