Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tributaries of Catawissa Creek/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 16:20, 3 January 2015 [1].

List of tributaries of Catawissa Creek edit

Featured list candidates/List of tributaries of Catawissa Creek/archive1

Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because:

Prose. I won't pretend to be a good judge of prose, but I did give it a copyedit and I didn't notice any issues with the prose. I also asked someone I know offline, and they liked the prose.
Lead. I believe the lead does a fairly good job of introducing the topic and of explaining some basic facts about the tributaries as a whole.
Comprehensiveness. I think it goes into a reasonable amount of detail. It is not as long as the somewhat related FL List of tributaries of Larrys Creek, but it's my opinion that that other list is a little too detailed, so the list I'm nominating should be fine. This list could not easily be integrated into the article on Catawissa Creek without unbalancing the article.
Structure. The article contains a lead section with basic facts about Catawissa Creek and its tributaries. The next section contains a table of the tributaries of the creek and the subsequent sections contain tables of sub-tributaries. I belive that this structure is fairly intuitive and it is also similar to the structure of the FL List of tributaries of Larrys Creek.
Style. I don't know the MOS by heart, but this does meet the specific guidelines at WP:FLCR. There are no redlinks and no major accessibility issues. The majority of the tributaries have pictures and all are CC-BY-SA images taken by me. Captions are impractical since the images are inside tables, but the meaning of the pictures should be obvious.
Stability. The list is extremely stable. In fact, there has been only one substantial contributor and two minor copyeditors. No edits to the list have been reverted.

I haven't had much luck with featured content, but hopefully this will pass. Thanks for considering it. --Jakob (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it would be best to list details similar to those found in List of tributaries of Larrys Creek; I think it's valuable information that would lead to a much more comprehensive list, and I don't see any reason to not include it when it's available. Also, nice job with the taking the pictures! I know it's not easy. However, I'm not a huge fan of the missing pictures (10 out of the 26). Not sure what others think, but it may be worth removing the images column, and instead provide only a few of the best images in a gallery (as is done with the Larrys Creek list). The water bodies aren't particularly distinguishable from each other, so I don't think images for each listing add much value (especially when other data could be included in its place). At the same time, though, doesn't hurt to include them. Finally, I'd definitely include page numbers when referencing the lengthy PDFs. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperHamster: Thanks for the feedback and the compliment :-). I've added page numbers to all the PDFs. I've also added a little bit more information, but not all of the information in the list of tributaries of Larrys Creek seems terribly relevant. A paragraph describing the structure of the list seems rather silly and describing the creek's course and its watershed seems to go a bit off-topic. I already do describe Catawissa Creek's general location. It would be nice to keep the pictures in, since they do add some aesthetic value. There's still room for another column or two if there was some other information you wanted to include (elevation perhaps? or coordinates?). --Jakob (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakob: Nice, thanks for the pages. Apologies for being unclear, but I was looking for more data in the table, not more information in the intro. I think any information available would be value (so evaluation, coordinates, remarks if needed, etc.). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a creek that is not even 50 miles long should not have a sub-article on its tributaries. A road that long should not have a separate article with all the intersections it gets. If this is not a 3.b violation, then it should be AFDed for GNG. Nergaal (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to try it. Personally, in fulfilling Wikipedia's gazeteering functions, I'm not entirely sure this is a GNG violation. Either way, I'm noting that I (with my delegate's hat on) consider this oppose inactionable at FLC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hoe can this NOT be easily included in the parent Catawissa Creek article? There are 20 entires here that have way too much information listed here which can be presented in a shortened format there. Nergaal (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the above oppose is really just IDONTLIKEIT. All the items in the list have their own articles, and I see no problem at all with gathering them into a list. Unless the commentator actions his own threats, this nomination is good to go. So, some actionable items.

Avoid bold links in the lead. There's really no need to have any bold here, just for the sake of it.
Not keen on the opening sentence, perhaps a reword to avoid the use of the term "tributary" three times in one sentence.
"long ... long" I'd mix it up a little perhaps with "in length" or something to avoid repetitive prose.
I'm no expert, I don't know the difference between a run, a creek and a hollow. Do we have articles or sections of articles we can link these terms to?
No need to link common terms however, such as fish.
"most, but not all, of the tributaries" "but not all" is redundant.
Is there a reason for the capitalisation of Coldwater Fishery? If it's so significant, why don't we have an article or a redirect to something appropriate?
If this is a USEng article, I would expect to see units like "metre" written as "meter".
I was confused by the fact you list the tributaries of the tributaries at the same heading level. I would expect to see sections 2, 3, and 4 as subsections of section 1.
What's the initial sort order of the lists?
Check your columns sort properly, at a first glance the Mouth elevation column doesn't for example.
References in numerical order please, you have [6][7][8][9][1] for instance.
Several blank cells, never good. I usually annotate them with N/A or Not known or –.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for your feedback. Responding to your comments in order:

- - I removed the bolded links from the lead.
  - The word "tributary" is only used twice in the opening sentence (there's no non-awkward way to only use it once).
  - I changed one "long" to "in length".
  - I made section links for run and creek and explained hollow in the text.
  - Delinked.
  - Fixed.
  - It is an official designation used by the PADEP if I'm not mistaken. I don't believe there's an article on the topic.
    Needs a footnote explaining the designation then. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed.
  - They're now level three headings under section 1.
  - They're sorted in ascending order by river miles.
  - I think whenever the cells in a list aren't bare numbers ({{convert}} is used in the columns), the sorting mechanism treats them as strings, so 1000 comes before 200.
    Well it needs to be fixed because it doesn't sort correctly. There's a chance you could use the {{sort}} template, or one of its derivatives. Right now it's unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed.
  - I added ndashes to the blank cells. The image cells aren't actually blank; they contain placeholder images in case pictures of those streams show up someday. --Jakob (talk)
    They most certainly are blank to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - - I agree with TRM, those white placeholders are more disruptive than an actual blank cell. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        @The Rambling Man and Crisco 1492: OK, I've removed the placeholders and also used the sort template to fix the sorting. I also added footnotes for the fishery designations. Also pinging @SuperHamster:. --Jakob (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support a good list and my issues have been addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the list has been well-improved to satisfy the comment I posted above (now collapsed). Glad to support. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat edit

I suggest making the image column unsortable: it's not usual to sort by image;

Done. --Jakob (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of bundling the five citations in the "Mouth elevation" column?

I know it does look a bit ugly, but all of them are needed. The elevation lists only list streams in one county each and four such lists are needed (the National Map is needed since Tomhicken Creek's elevation is slightly off in the elevation table). --Jakob (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the sorting is slightly off in places. "Mouth elevation" shows David run last, even though it's not the longest; distance from mouth: cross run shows up towards the end, even though it contains a dash. (Check the other columns and tables too)

Fixed Davis Run, the rest look good. --Jakob (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite: "Distance from mouth": Cross Run shows up towards the end, even though it contains a dash. - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. --Jakob (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the numbers need to be sorted. 9.10 miles should just be 9.1 (and a number of others too; 08.3 should be just 8.3

Fixed 08.3, but 9.10 should stay 9.10, since the source specifically gives it to two decimal places, like it does with the other tributaries. --Jakob (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. It's probably best we retain consistency with all the figures as well. - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– SchroCat (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All good now. A map would have been ideal, to show the location and/or course, but there's nothing obvious on Commons. Maybe have a quick search to see if you can find anything PD, but that doesn't affect my support here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was asked to comment here and find it meets the FLC criteria. I have made some minor copy edits to the article to polish the prose. I am impressed that there are so many images of the tributaries, and added one of Catawissa Creek itself to the lead. I think it would be great if a map could be added - have you tried asking User:Kmusser, who makes beautiful stream maps? Even when a map is added, I would still include a picture of the main stem (Catawissa Creek itself) in the article. The only quibble I have is that the reference links in the three Notes are just URLs and should be formatted like any other web ref in a FL. I am OK with this being different than the Larrys Creek trib list (which I am the main author of), but do think it would be pretty easy to add left and right bank info here (to the list itself), as well as mentioning river mile explicitly (I know it is linked). Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.