Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Black Moshannon State Park

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:46, 24 April 2008.

Black Moshannon State Park

edit

Co-Nominators Ruhrfisch and Dincher

We are nominating this article for featured article because we believe that is represents some of the best work that wikipedia has to offer regarding state parks. It has undergone an extensive peer review (thanks to The Rambling Man, VerruckteDan, Ben MacDui, Dtbohrer and María) which is archived on the talk page. Ruhrfisch and Dincher (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great article, very complete and well referenced. Definitely one of Wikipedia's finest. This is great work from all the editors, especially User:Dincher and User:Ruhrfisch. VerruckteDan (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and kinds words. Dincher (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto on the thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from Juliancolton (talk)
Comments I read the lead and flipped through the rest of the article, and the writing (at a glance) seems good and well-referenced (I will more closely read it later), but the infobox image doesn't show the state park, but rather a lili pad-filled pond. Is it possible to find a better image for the infobox? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00
54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually the photo is of the lake in the park as the caption says The bog area of Black Moshannon Lake, showing abundant growth of waterlilies. All of the other photos were taken in January and are perhaps not as typical. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, ok then. I'd still like a more interesting photo of the landscape of the park, but it doesn't affect the quality of the article, so it's not a big deal. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are other photographs of the park in {{Commonscat}}, although most are already in the article. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd actually like to see for the infobox, but it's up to you. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I will defer to Dincher as he is the primary author, thanks for pointing this out. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Done. Dincher (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Also, another minor issue, but I'd like to see non-breaking spaces after the numbers. Thanks. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Almost all of the numbers and units use {{convert}} templates, which does this automatically. Could you please point out an example where it is missing? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • They're few and far between, but the first example is The park is in Pennsylvania Important Bird Area #33, where bird watchers have recorded 175 different avian species. If you'd like, I can go through tomorrow and put them in myself. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • OK, thanks - I was not thinking of this at all. I have fixed them all now. Thanks for pointing this out, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Looks great, and good to see the image in the infobox. I'll finish up reading the article in the morning, and I'll give my vote. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments
  • In the lead: As home to the "[l]argest reconstituted bog/wetland complex in Pennsylvania",[6]... is exactly what is said in the body of the article. That's not a problem, but per WP:LEAD, anything that is already referenced in the body of the article shouldn't be referenced in the lead.
  • Hmm, thanks for pointing this out, but I must respectfully disagree. Per Wikipedia:CITE#When_quoting_someone "You should always add a citation when quoting published material, and the citation should be placed directly after (or just before) the quotation, which should be enclosed within double quotation marks". I also note that Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations says "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited.". Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I must have misread that, then. I think that reference doesn't have to be there, but it doesn't hurt, I suppose. (And since it's your FAC, it's completely your choice). Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black Moshannon State Park is open for year round recreation and features an extensive network of trails which allow hiking, biking, and viewing the bog habitat at the Black Moshannon State Natural Area. should be "viewing of the big habitat"? I could be wrong, but I think it would sound better that way.
  • I peronally think it sounds more correct without "of", but am not 100% sure. Since Casliber has also raised questions about this sentence (below), I will ask his/her opinion too. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Geology section, do you think it would be better to move the second large paragraph about the climate of the park into a sub-section of Geology? It just seems kind of weird going from geology to climate, and back to geology.
  • I moved the last paragraph to first there, so it now opens with rocks, moves to the Allegheny Plateau, and then discusses the climate. I am not overly fond of one paragraph sections, i.e. for the climate. I suppose this section could be renamed "Geology and climate" if desired. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Geology and climate" would be good, yes. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it has been renamed to "Geology and climate" Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black Moshannon Lake's waters are warmer than those of the creek, and so hold many different species of fish, including Largemouth Bass, Muskellunge, Yellow Perch, Chain Pickerel, Bullhead Catfish, Northern Pike, Bluegill, and crappie. Why are all of the fish species capitalized except for Crappie?
  • This was something we wrestled with in the Peer Review. The article consistently capitalizes the names of species, but not other plant and ann animal names. Crappies does not refer to a single species of fish, so it is not capitalized. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. That makes sense. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per below, I agree that the IBA section should be a H4 under "Wildlife".
  • Well, that's it from me. Overall, an excellent article, and thus I could only find a couple things to complain about.;) Good work! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your helpful comments Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. All of my comments (except for one, which is pending) were addressed or explained, and I think this is an excellent article. Thus, I Support. This has to be one of the best Geography articles on Wikipedia. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support language and style (I'm not qualified yet to support more). Editors were very attentive to my concerns, and everyone else's. Great article. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from User:Dank55

Native American name controversy uses the word "tribe" without any embarrassment, which is good to know. "Industrial" was a judgment call ... it depends on whether you're looking for a topic sentence or a narrative. For the third point, pick which one sounds right to you, "The fishing grounds is wet" or "The fishing grounds are wet". If you like the second one, then "it was a ... fishing grounds" doesn't work. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a long time it read: Humans have long used the Black Moshannon area for recreational, industrial, and subsistence purposes. The Seneca tribe used the area as a hunting and fishing grounds. On April 15 in a copyedit to get ready for FAC I changed the second sentence to It was a hunting and fishing grounds for the Seneca tribe. to try and avoid two sentences in a row with "used" and "area". Just thought this might help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking if you believe "fishing grounds" is singular or plural; which sounds better to you, "The fishing grounds is wet" or "The fishing grounds are wet"? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I hate hyphen rules, and I need to subscribe to a better reference, but I'm pretty sure most people write "English-speaking (something)"; the first 4 pages of Google and Alltheweb searches seemed to confirm that. 20th-century, I'm pretty sure, is wrong; you hyphenate when it's used as an adjective (and not 100% then), such as "20th-century novelist". I'll make the edits; revert if you disagree. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's my duty to inform you that circa is in violation of WP:MOSNUM, which recommends "ca." today (and "c." was also fine, two days ago ... tomorrow who knows). Also that I don't give a darn, feel free to keep "circa". - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand Tony's perspective, and I'm pretty sure I don't, he would have a problem with "Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression of the 1930s". I think "Great Depression" adds something for some readers, so I'm fine with it. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your careful eye and edits to the article. I happen to prefer circa, but am fine with c. I would have to say that grounds sounds plural to my ear. The reason I gave the previous sentence is that it avoids the question. I also note that the Wikipedia article refers to them as the Seneca nation (avoiding tribe). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning "features" and "available for use", we live in a sea of promotionalism, and there are two approaches to fighting the effects of it: either don't use those words, or apply the words to things that deserve to be promoted, such as Wikipedia itself (which uses words like this all the time in self-reference), or the results of conservation and preservation. I don't see why these things shouldn't be "featured" and considered "available for use". If it were up to me, I would say it's a matter of speaking in your own voice. But I'm not familiar with the preferences in FAs.
I am not sure what this comment means. Dincher (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this refers to the sentence (since changed) on the park featuring cabins that are available for use. Thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice it still says "It was a hunting and fishing grounds", but you decided fishing grounds is plural. You wouldn't say "It was a trails" or "It was a lakes".
Does this It was used as hunting and fishing grounds by the Seneca tribe. work? Dincher (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support language and style (not qualified to support anything else). Yes, that's fine, Dincher, although I took it out of the passive voice, which also helps the parallelism. And yes, my comment about "features" was regarding the edit that Casliber suggested; I just don't want us to establish some kind of precedent that we can't talk about "featuring" things that really do deserve to be featured (such as Wikipedia). - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and the fix(es). I really with there was a better way to navigate around these discussion pages. Thanks again! Dincher (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Thanks too for your support, comments and edits Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Btw, WP:MOSNUM says to abbreviate to "X ft" after the first occurrence of "X feet"; do you guys have any preference against this? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked and the actual quotation from WP:MOSNUM is The exception is that where there is consensus to do so, the main units may also be abbreviated in the main text after the first occurrence. I prefer spelling out the main units, so thanks for asking but I think we will keep it this way for now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, sorry for the mistake. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion, would you rather use "percolate" or "permeable" than "absorb" when talking about the sandstone? I'm aware that non-native readers may have a harder time with the first two words than with "absorb", but arguably, "percolate" (sometimes shortened to "perc" informally) is the right word. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think "perc" sounds unencylcopedic and am afraid "percolate" sounds too much like coffee-making to me. The sentence would have to be rewritten if "permeable" were used instead of "absorb" and, since we already have to rewrite / expand the Geology section, I would prefer to not rewrite other sentences. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you don't link "1800s" (good idea); just curious, does anyone here know that the article called 1800s actually concerns 1800 to 1809? Not helpful. We discussed it in MOSNUM today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dank55 (talk • contribs) 04:08, April 19, 2008
Yes, I belive "19th Century" links to the whole century. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments - just getting my feet wet having a look-through. Comments below..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::Black Moshannon State Park is open for year round recreation and features an extensive network of trails... - something about this sentence to me sounds like a advertising brochure. I thought all parks were open year round, and it makes it sound like recreation is the main aim of the park (rather than conservation). The word features is what makes the second bit sound advertorial. I am trying to think of a different way to phrase it but you guys know the park better....Actually, the first clause is redundant: try " There is an extensive network of trails which allow (year-round) hiking, biking, and viewing the bog habitat at the Black Moshannon State Natural Area. " - is any meaning lost?

There are several Pennsylvania state parks in remote areas or atop mountains that are for all intents and purposes closed in winter. I tried putting your sentence in without the paranthesis "There is an extensive network of trails which allow year-round hiking, biking, and viewing the bog habitat at the Black Moshannon State Natural Area." and realized that in the winter when the snow is deep you can't hike or mountain bike on the trails. I have changed the word "features" to the more neutral "has" and tweaked slightly so it now reads: Black Moshannon State Park is open year round for recreation and has an extensive network of trails... Also, Juliancolton has asked (above) if there should be an "of" in viewing [of] the bog habitat. I tend to think not, but would appreciate your opinion on this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC) OK. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent) I definitely prefer the 'viewing' without the 'of' too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:Lenape (or Delaware) - I am Australian and got confused for a second here; an epithet after 'Delaware' - x- Indian, or x-tribe, may be helpful.

:::I added tribe, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::Early on, the CCC constructed a dam at Black Moshannon Lake - actually, a year or date would be better here if available

The most specific information is given in one the National Register of Historic Places nomination forms [1] and is just "One of the first jobs undertaken by the CCC at Black Moshannon was the construction of a new dam at Black Moshannon Lake." We also have the black and white CCC photo published in 1936 showing men working on the completed dam. My guess is that the dam was begun in 1933 and finished that year or by 1934, but I have no verifiable source for that. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The CCC-built dam forming Black Moshannon Lake was replaced in the 1950s by the current structure - again, why not exact date?
Again, the most specific sources (NRHP nomination forms again) all just say the new dam was built in the 1950s. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since its establishment in 1937, Black Moshannon State Park has undergone several changes. - this is a little vague and could be more specific, i.e. it is about chunks of the park used for other purposes (?) This is not a deal-breaker really as I am a bit conflicted about it.
It is meant to introduce the section and the fact that, although many of the CCC-built facilities still exist, the park is not a museum and there have been other developments since the CCC finished their work - i.e. the airport, ski area, new facilities, Bog Natural Area, etc. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great to have a bit more detail in the Wildlife section - rare or unusual critters, or those which normally occur further north. It is a tad listy as it stands
Sorry, didn't see the IBA, but then you have some bird stuff in wildlife. Id be inclined to make this a 4 lvl heading under wildlife
Changed, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::Nineteen cabins are available for use at Black Moshannon State Park. - err, sounds like an ad, how about "Nineteen cabins are used by visitors at Black Moshannon State Park." or something similar.

How about "Nineteen cabins can be used by visitors at Black Moshannon State Park."? I think that "are used" makes it sound like everyone uses them, which is not the case. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, better. I put it in. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, gotta sleep now - I'll try to get onto more from Boating, fishing, and hunting down tomorrow. Very interesting reading and should pass this time. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful comments and rest well. I must admit I do not understand "should pass this time" as this has not been in FAC before. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I hadn't meant it like that. nevermind. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some more: Edward Gertler... - erm, who? A couple of words on who he is would be good to clarify why what he says is notable. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Gertler is the author of the book used in reference 36. Dincher (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::Yeah, so if he's a notable local celebrity for some reason would be good to put that in eg. Longtime canoeist/kayaker and author Edward Gertler says....

Already done. Didn't you check it? Dincher (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad. Great. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, very nearly there. It would be great if you could get any more wildlife info (eg on the bears or whatver) in hte wildlife section which looks a little short and listy compared with the bird bit. If there is nil then don't worry too much but essentially it is a natural area so a little more on the fauna would be good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments. The wildlife at the park isn't that unusual for Pennsylvania. The bear, deer, squirrel, etc., are pretty much plentiful. The IBA received special treatment since the birds are unusual for the rest of PA. Perhaps we could add a bit about how the common wildlife has come back since the lumber era. Dincher (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just added a sentence about how the animals have come back from very low population levels. Dincher (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Better, I think we're over the line. I am in Australia so haven't a clue what the normal wildlife of Pennsylvania is. I think these sort of articles provide a great opportunity to go into greater depth on ecological material. Compared with what I could find on some Australian natural areas it's still a tiny bit underdone but it ain't a deal-breaker no more. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 02:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 20 "FAA Airport Master Record" is lacking publisher information.
    • I have added the publisher and the date accessed (the ref uses a FAA template which does not include either - sorry). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.dcski.com/lostareas/viewlostprofile.php?id=15 a reliable source? Do they publish a magazine?
    • According to their website, here: "DCSki is an award-winning independent on-line publication covering outdoor recreation in the Mid-Atlantic region...". There are at least four other sources (two PA state park histories, the park's own web site, and USGS topo map of Black Moshannon) that agree with many of the details given in the DC Ski article, though a few points of information are sourced solely to that reference. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/PA/Centre/districts.html failed to load to me.
    • I am also unable to load the page currently, although the Google cache is avalable here. I am not sure what the problem is, but will keep checking. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link is working again Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All other links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose Support. Well done, both of you. --Moni3 (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and the suggestions. You've helped make this article better. Dincher (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, thanks for your suggestions, copyedit, and support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues Resolved from --Moni3 (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The role of Native Americans has to be more extensive than naming the location. Did they live in the area surrounding the park? How did they live? How was society structured? What did they use the area for? It's an unfortunate indication of the diminshed legacy of the first inhabitants of the area that the section dedicated to them is so small. —This is part of a comment by Moni3 (of 18:22, 18 April 2008 ), which was interrupted by the following:
    • Thank you for you comments. I will try to reply to your questions, although it seems to me that much of the material requested is already in the article. As the article says The Seneca, members of the Iroquois Confederacy, were inhabitants in the area of Black Moshannon Lake... so they lived in what is now the park itself, as well as the surrounding area. The article also notes that the Lenape lived in the area of the park and tells what they used the area for (other Native Americans, including the Lenape, hunted, fished, and traded in the region) and that they named the creek (The name Moshannon ... is derived from a Lenape (or Delaware) tribe name for Moshannon and Black Moshannon Creeks: Moss-hanne, which means "moose stream" or "elk stream".). Another major Native American use of the area, the Great Shamokin Path, is described: The Great Shamokin Path, the major east-west path connecting the Susquehanna and Allegheny River basins, crossed Black Moshannon Creek at a ford a few miles downstream from the park; however, no trails of the indigenous peoples are recorded as having passed through the park itself.. As the article says, prior to both of these tribes, the Susquehannocks lived in the general area, but not much is known about their specific areas of habitation and activity.
      We have had to dig to get this information - if you look at main page of the park's official website here, there is one sentence on the Native Americans: "According to local tradition, American Indians called this watershed "Moss-Hanne," meaning "moose stream," thus the origin of the park's name." Sadly, the official park history webpage here also has only one sentence on Native Americans: "The Seneca Indians hunted, traded and fished here when the present lake was a string of beaver ponds." The two print histories of the PA park system make no mention of the Native American inhabitants of the area.
      As for your questions on "How did they live? How was society structured?" we can certainly look up something on the Seneca and Lenape and add a sentence or two, but at what point does this become original research? The sad truth is that not much of the specifics of the Native Americans who lived where the park is now are known - what little is available and pertinent and in reliable sources has been included.
      My final question to you is an issue of WP:WEIGHT, specifically the part that says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." How much more should we add on Native Americans? I will note that this is an article about a park built by the CCC between 1933 and 1937 in an area formerly inhabited by Native Americans and lumberjacks. We currently have 1,462 characters in the section on the Native Americans, 1,893 characters in the section on the lumber era, and 1,222 characters in the section on the CCC workers who actually built most of the park (this includes spaces and refs, i.e. [4], but not photo captions or headers). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, believe me. To be asked to add information during an FAC - I imagine someone may have called me a name... But this should be a stellar example of the features and history of the park. I went back and re-read the section, and my point stands, for me at least. I wrote this section as a portion of the human history of Everglades National Park. I can't suggest you follow that since every article must be its own, but I know there's more to the pre-Columbian history of the region than what is presented. And it becomes Orignal Research when you begin making it up, or writing what you think you know without citing information from reliable sources. --Moni3 (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But this article is about the park and not about it's previous inhabitants. Sometimes I have wondered if the pre-history of the many park articles I have written is truly significant to the history of the park. I like to add it because it is interesting. I agree with Ruhrfisch, if much more is added to the history about Indian habitation of the area the article will moved away from a balanced history of human use of the area and move onto a history of Indian habitation of the area. Dincher (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is your decision, as the principal authors of the article. I disagree with it, and my oppose may be overridden. But I ask you to sit on your approach. I resist criticisms of my articles at first suggestion (and I get really huffy about it, too). And it sometimes takes some effort to remember the goal is the absolute best information that can be presented about the topic. We are, in many ways, honoring the topics we spend so much time writing about. I think you've done an admirable job honoring the efforts of the lumber industry and the CCC in this article. I don't think you've done as good a job addressing people who lived in the area of the park for thousands of years prior to those addressed in other sections. So - wait on it, get mad at me a bit. Think. Then see if you can find some more information. You have a couple more weeks in this FAC, and I'm not the only editor commenting. --Moni3 (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added some about the Indian's resistance in the area. the Big Runaway which took place during the Revolution in the West Branch Valley. I am not really sure if this fits in with the park, but it does show that the Indians resisted the settlement of the Europeans and that they simply didn't fade away. Hope this helps. If it doesn't I have no problem with removing it. Dincher (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (unindent) I did not mean to be huffy and appreciate your efforts to improve the article. I can certainly add more about Pennsylvania pre-Columbian history, but none of the eight books I checked today specifically mentioned Moshannon Creek or Black Moshannon Creek, so it will be general material for the northcentral part of the state. I can also add more material about the Seneca, and the Lenape, but most of the material on the Seneca focuses on their New York home territory. As for the Lenape, they were didvided into three phratries (clans), but I have been unable to find which of these were active in the park area.
    I appreciate Dincher adding the Big Runaway material - it is all true and all sourced, but the sources do not mention any connection with Moshannon Creek. In fact the settlement furthest west (closest to what is now the park) at the time was in Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, which is today about an hour away. This is where I worry about getting into original research. Should this be included or not? Finally I note that Everglades National Park is about 1.5 million acres. Black Moshannon State Park is less than 4000 acres (less than 0.25% the size). I believe that it is realtively harder to find material about this small area, and fear that some of the information you are seeking from us simply does not exist in reliable sources. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. Resources on this topic, especially Indian inhabitation of the Black Mo area are limited. The addition of the Big Runaway is a stretch. It is plausible that some of the raiding Indians may have come from the Black Mo area, but with the resources available it cannot be proven. Dincher (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have expanded the Native Americans section about as much as I have been able to find reliable sources for, going back to 10,000 BC. I hope this is what was asked for Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These changes are wonderful. Good for you. (And please note I said I get huffy. I wasn't implying you were huffy.) --Moni3 (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, I will be working on tweaking the Ecology section next. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand the Geology section to describe how the geological elements of this area formed.
  • In Ecology, if the most significant ecological feature is the bog area (and that's what it seems like from the article), put Bog Natural Area at the top of this section. Instead of listing many forms of wildlife in two sentences, try peppering the Bog Area with forms of wildlife throughout the prose. The reader is overwhelmed with lists of animals. --Moni3 (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Bog Natural Area has been moved. Dincher (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken several of the bird species lists out of the Important Bird Area section and moved them into the Bog Natural Area and Wildlife sections. I also removed six duplicate species (previously listed in two sections, now just once in one section each). Dincher has added two sentences on the recovery of animal species after the devastation of the lumber era, and I added a two sentence introduction to the Ecology section (before the Bog Natural Area subsection), so that some of the bird species list moves made more sense. Hopefully this satisifies your request, if not please offer further suggestions for improvement Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • I think I've said that for all WP:PENNA state park articles I've reviewed: please reduce the dazzling of unnecessary wikilinks in the references. You don't need to link PADCNR in the references to begin with, much less every time it shows up. Most other city and department links are at the very least arguably unnecessary. Circeus (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks very well written, although I haven't gone through it properly. Tony (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments This is a thoroughly-researched, well-written, and carefully illustrated article. I have a few questions and comments before I support.

  • The 1892 local history - is this a seminal local history? is there nothing else? If not, the age of the source should be made clear in the prose.
  • After this, the lands of the West Branch Susquehanna River valley were under the nominal control of the Iroquois - I tend to think that nineteenth-century works on Native Americans have been supplanted by more up-to-date history, perhaps more than two years after the Wounded Knee Massacre?
  • The forests near the three original counties, Philadelphia, Bucks, and Chester, were the first to be harvested, as the early settlers used the readily available timber to build homes, barns, and ships, and cleared the land for agriculture. The demand for lumber slowly increased and by the time of the American Revolution the lumber industry had reached the interior and mountainous regions of Pennsylvania
  • Meginnes (1892 history) is a seminal local history, but is now nowhere the only source cited for anything in the article. I added a few more citations to other, more modern references to the Native Americans and Lumber sections for this and the next question. The 1892 history is useful for a general reader in that it is available online (the other history references for the Native Americans are print only, as is Taber's work on the West Branch Susquehanna lumber industry centered in Williamsport). Is this OK? I suppose we could remove these if required to, but I just reread Meginness' chapter on "ABORIGINAL OCCUPATION" and it has the Susquehannocks (and all their names), the war with the Iroquois they lost, the Lenape (he even uses their own name, as well as Delaware) being subject to the Iroquois and being allowed to move into the West Branch Susquehanna watershed, and their all leaving the area. I would prefer to keep it. Perhaps it could be added to the reference for Wallace's "Indians of Pennsylvania" with some sort of note - "For a general overview of Native American History in the West Branch Susquehanna watershed, see ..." and the lumber chapter could be added to the Taber note? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think adding the note you propose would be a good idea. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have moved both Meginness chapter references into notes as described above and hope this meets your request. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there are no known archeological sites within Black Moshannon State Park, the name Moshannon (pronounced /Mō ˈsha-nən/) is derived from a Lenape (or Delaware) name for Moshannon and Black Moshannon Creeks: Moss-hanne, which means "moose stream" or "elk stream" - Are we sure about this fact, sourced to a 1928 work on Native American linguistic history?
    • No known archeological sites is now sourced to three references - just to be clear, I can find no mention of archeological sites within the park in any source on it or on Black Moshannon Creek I have read (and I read the 300 hits for "Black Moshannon" on Google Books, looked in libraries, etc.) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was asking whether we are sure about the name - I was assuming that was what the source was used for. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry for my misunderstanding. Donehoo is incredibly thorough and goes back to original documents (maps, land deeds, traveler's journals, etc.) usually in the PA State Archives and cites these, plus he apparently knew or at least understood Iroquoian and Lenape and other Native languages and gives the probable original Native American language name or names (most have been corrupted more than "Moss hanne" -> Moshannon). The Susquehanna River Basin Commission still cites him on their official website. The park website and other sources (Gertler for one) agree on "Moss hanne" too - should I add one of them? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source has an author and publication information - it should be included in the footnote.
  • Not all of the footnotes are formatted the same way. Some have the author's first name first and some have the last name first, for example.
  • This source does not look reliable to me and I am not convinced by the rationale provided above. Note that the website says: "If you have any additional information about this ski area, please contact DCSki's Editor, or add your comments by scrolling below. To view historical information about other lost ski areas in the Mid-Atlantic region, click here. Note that DCSki's Lost Ski Areas section contains recollections pieced together by DCSki readers. We try to continually develop a clearer and more accurate picture of closed ski areas, but understand that some of the details reported on this page may be inaccurate." The comments included in Wikipedia's article appear to be from a random reader.
    • I was able to find some more data from the New York Times and some other sources removed the DC Ski ref and the sentence on it closing due to lack of snow making equipment. In the process of looking I also found more data for the airport, 50th anniversary of the park, and climate, so I added those too. I did not find anything on archeology. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This link wasn't working when I checked.
    • It has been moved to here and is fixed in the article. Thanks and good catch, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ruhrfisch knows what I think of infoboxes. I will accept that these editors deem the infobox necessary. However, this one is out of control! Cut a map! The box is too busy!
Disagree. A general map of the park and a specific map of the historical area are relevant and should stay. Dincher (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)The infobox follows the model of Presque Isle State Park which is FA. I know you dislike boxes - where in the MOS is "too busy" listed, and is this an actionable criterion? If absolutley required to, I suppose the park map could go in place of the Antes sign. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that both maps are useful, however my eyes refuse to look at them because of all of business in the box. I would suggest removing the Antes sign (which the user has to click on to read anyway) and placing one of the maps there. (I consider this part of good article layout, which is part the WP:MOS, which is criteria 2, if you want to get picky about it.)Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the park map is out of the infobox and in the Native American History section. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. It it gives an additional history of the area. Shows how the land has gone from a town to a "wilderness". Dincher (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It could go if it must. Dincher (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sign doesn't really show that (it is a picture of text!) and the user has to click on it to read it. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped it for another picture of where the tavern and village used to be. Long term the Antes school house is still standing and I will try to get a picture of it for this section (only have it in the background in a few cruddy / unusable pictures now). Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At times, particularly in the "Ecology" section, I felt overwhelmed by links. Is there any way to fix this situation?
    • We wanted to link each plant and animal for readers unfamiliar with the area and its ecology. I have gone through and made sure that no links are duplicated in the body of the article Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, but I think cutting out links like hunting, trapping, and 19th century will help make these high-value links more visible. Right now, some of the paragraphs just look like lists of links. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
gone, gone, gone. Dincher (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a second look for more links tomorrow Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two sections of the article sound too much like an advertisement for the park to me:
  • The "Cabins" section gives so much detail about what is in the cabins and when they are available that I felt like I was reading a brochure.
I believe this information is needed because it is an article about the park. I feel like there is too much info about the history, ecology and geology. I feel like cutting out details about the facilities at the park will even further diminish the details on what is actually available to the visitor. Dincher (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked this section somewhat, removing some adjectives, etc.,
I still think this is unnecessary information, but unless other reviewers mention it, I will let it go. Awadewit (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the "Trails" section need to list every trail? I think examples would be sufficient. Again, I had a brochure moment.
Same thoughts as the cabins. Dincher (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)What criteria would be used for examples? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed several repeated instances of "gentle slopes" and one "steep". This should read less like a brochure. Dincher (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The brochure moments are still there for me. Examples:
All cabin renters need to bring their own dinnerware, pots and pans, towels, dishes, and bed linens
Shortened this a bit, but I still feel like readers will need to know if they need to bring household items. Dincher (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The use of these picnic tables and unreserved pavilions is first come, first served, and they are free of charge
I don't understand the problem here. It clearly states the availability of the facilities.Dincher (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not exactly sure how to choose the trails, but something must be done. When I got to this list, I just groaned - readers are not interested in every detail about the park. We have to remember that we are not here to provide detailed hiking information about the park. We are not just replicating the parks website. We need to be selective. I noticed that one trail won an award - that is an obvious choice for inclusion. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I eliminated a few of them kept, Allegheny Front Trail it is a major trail that passes through the park and could be it's own article, kept Bog Trail it's the winner. Kept Hay Road Trail it is historical. Kept Moss-Hanne Trail it goes through the natural area. Kept Ski Slope Trail it is historical, as is Sleepy Hollow Trail. Kept Snowmobile Trail it is a connector trail to snowmobile trails in the state forest (I wish there was no such thing (snowmobile trails in state forests that is.)), kept Star Mill Trail it's also historical. Dincher (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked this a bit - all 13 trails are still in the article, but only 6 of 13 are in the "Trails" section - one is now in Native Americans, four are in the "Lumber" section (in a block of 3 and Tent Hill Trail after Tent Hill), Ski Slope Trail is in "Modern Era" (guess where?), and Sleepy Hollow Trail's story of gypsy moth recovery now follows the forests in the "Wildlife" section. I call it the getting small children to eat method - chop it up into little bits and mix it in with things they like. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I always like being compared to a small child. :) Awadewit (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we need a list of nearby state parks?
There are 120 Pennsylvania state park articles that have nearby state parks listed. I believe this information is relevant to the reader that is interested in visiting this particular park and any nearby parks. Dincher (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)This also follows the model of FA Presque Isle State Park Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want a picture of the "watermelon seed spitting contest"!

Thanks for an interesting read! As usual, Ruhr, your images are beautiful! Awadewit (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial response: Thanks very much for your careful reading, comments, and questions, which I will work on responding to individually. However, I wanted to make clear that this is one of 120 Pennsylvania state parks. As such, we have tried to do certain things the same through all 120 articles, although there are naturally some variations. I will also note that some of the issues on Native American references are my fault - this section has been rewritten in PR and again here in FAC and I was not as careful as I should have been and apologize. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your critical eye, helpful comments, and support. I apologize again for the small child remark - I was trying to make an analogy, not cast aspersions. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! Dincher (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I meant to get to this sooner, but (insert charming excuse for lack of time here). I participated in the Peer Review and thought the article excellent then, but as is usually the case, the article has improved even more due to helpful comments from FAC reviewers able to get here before me. Wonderful work, guys; this is a highly interesting and well put together article that deserves its gold star. María (habla conmigo) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and all the work at PR! Dincher (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - thanks very much for your careful reading, comments and support Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Black_Moshannon_State_Park&oldid=1126593507"