Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 PresN 16:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]


List of tributaries of Shamokin Creek

edit

List of tributaries of Shamokin Creek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second attempt at the Featured List process. It details all twelve named tributaries of Shamokin Creek, a 32.4-mile-long creek that is badly affected by acid mine drainage. This list of tributaries of Shamokin Creek draws heavily on List of tributaries of Catawissa Creek in terms of style and content; I believe that this list meets the FLC criteria for the same reasons that my last FLC does. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice article, I think the lead needs a bit of cleaning though. Here is my first pass review:

  • The river length, and number of tributaries should be sourced (sentence one and three)
  • Technically, it's just data derived from the tables below, but okay.
  • The smallest and largest tributary should be mentioned by name as well as number in sentence two.
  • Done.
  • Perhaps a short phrase should be included telling the reader the difference between a run and a creek? Are they just names?
  • A run generally smaller than a creek, but it's not a hard-and-fast rule (for instance, Carbon Run is larger than Lick Creek). They're linked to relevant sections of the stream article, though (this was suggested back during the Catawissa Creek tributaries FLC).
  • The last sentence of the lead is a little redundant, since you already talk about the longest tributary, perhaps you can have a largest/smallest watershed focus here? (with names and numbers?)
  • It's not entirely redundant since that sentence lists the five largest watersheds instead of just the largest. I wouldn't be averse to doing this, except that Little Shamokin Creek and Furnace Run are also the largest and smallest tributaries by watershed area, which would make it sound a bit odd. I instead just removed the sentence listing the shortest and longest tributary.
  • "by mining, the only exception being Furnace Run" -> "by mining with the expection of Furance Run"
  • Fixed.
  • "Various mine drainage sites occur in the watersheds of all other streams in this part of the watershed." What part of the watershed? The one of Furnace Run? Needs to be made clear.
  • Fixed.
  • Remove "however", not really needed here.
  • Fixed.
  • "are not designated as impaired waterbodies" needs a source. As does the next sentence.
  • I thought that even featured content did not need a citation after every sentence. There is a source at or before the end of the paragraph.
  • Remove second "however", also not really needed.
  • Done.
  • "Warmwater Fishery"... source doesn't contain this word
  • Dozens of sources make this connection. I personally don't think it's necessary since "WWF" clearly means "Warmwater Fishery", but if you want, I can find one of the many random sources that say so and stick it in.
  • This is fine, I didn't know wwf meant warmwater fishery.
  • "North Branch Shamokin Creek and Quaker Run, lack fish life."... needs source
  • As above, there is a source at or before the end of the paragraph.
  • Third "However" also needs to be removed.
  • I think I'd rather keep this one for aesthetic reasons.

These are all suggestions and open to debate. Mattximus (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I was going to ask you, but now I don't have to --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better, here is my second pass:

  • Should "abandoned mine drainage" be linked to Acid mine drainage instead? Also "organic enrichment" should be linked to Eutrophication. I believe these are the correct terms, but please let me know if I am wrong.
  • I've linked organic enrichment to eutrophication. Acid mine drainage is a subset of abandoned mine drainage. Acid mine drainage is what most or all of the AMD-impaired tributaries of Shamokin Creek are affected by, but the source only specifies abandoned mine drainage, I think.
  • "have supported healthy communities of aquatic life" or do you mean "support healthy communities of aquatic life"?
  • The source says that they historically supported aquatic life, but that makes it sound like they don't anymore (which may or may not be true). "have supported" seemed like a reasonable middle ground.

Other than that it looks good! I will Support pending those changes/clarifications. Mattximus (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: Responded. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EXCEPT that that list had 26 entries, so technically it was more difficult to include that into the parent article. This list is less than half that length and barely above the informal ~10 entries threshold that we generally agree/allow lists to go as FL. Even if the list itself is decided by some incredibly shallow reason to be notable enough, it still CAN EASILY be included in the parent article, without major revamping of that one. Nergaal (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And TRM, I am pretty sure that on average your comments are more "extremely disruptive" and drive people away from this volunteer-based project than mine are. Nergaal (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly baffled as to why you're so vehemently opposing this when even you admit it's above the threshold for FL. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal made the exact same argument, citing the same criteria during one of my featured list noms and made me almost want to quit editing all together. Mattximus (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry to hear that, keep up your good work! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • I don't find that the photos of the tributaries really add anything to an understanding of them. A lot of brown clear water surrounded by trees; a dime a dozen. Useful on their own pages, but here they unnecessarily lengthen the table, and it's filled with 90% whitespace as a result. What WOULD enhance understanding would be if they were instead maps of each tributary.
      • Personally, I think the images add more than maps. They help one get a sense for the general environment each stream is in, whether it's affected by acid mine drainage, and roughly how large each one is. None of which could be done with a simple map. Finally, and this is just my opinion, they're more visually interesting than a map. I can't argue with all the whitespace, but it wasn't an issue in my other FLC. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are the coordinates those of where the tributary meets the creek? If so, the column header should have a note specifying that. --Golbez (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.

Comments

  • Because I have no idea where " Susquehanna River " is, I suggest you put that into context before telling me how many named tributaries it has.
  • I think you're saying that there's a misplaced modifier, which has been fixed.
  • "The longest are Little Shamokin Creek, Carbon Run, and North Branch Shamokin Creek, while the tributaries with the largest watersheds are Little Shamokin Creek, Carbon Run, and Coal Run." feels a little "meh", two of the three tribs are repeated.
  • Okay, I changed it to just list the five longest tributaries.
  • Don't like the structure of the tables, I would merge them and add a note saying that the Plum Creek is a sub-trib.
  • Done.
  • " in the tributary Carbon Run" no need for tributary here.
  • Done.
  • " the tributary Trout Run" similar.
  • Done.
  • "by local sportsmen" how are you classifying those responsible for the maintenance of a hatchery as "sportsmen"?
  • Hmm? The way I understood it, the fact that they maintain a hatchery doesn't make them sportsmen; they are just sportsmen who happen to maintain a hatchery. The actual wording in the source is "A local sportsman club maintains a small hatchery on Trout Run near its confluence with Shamokin Creek".
  • I think we'll have to disagree on this one, as I don't think it's doing much harm and don't really see how it's a problem. The fact that it's a group of sportsmen doesn't mean that they don't do anything but sports. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for image column to be sortable.
  • Done.
  • Where no image exists, add a centrally aligned en-dash.
  • Done.
  • "p. 34,45,48,66,85,90-91,100,106,116,143," spaces, and should be pp.
  • Done.

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Responded, thanks for getting back to me. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what makes you think Abandoned mine drainage will ever be an article? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a broad term for any polluted water that comes out of a mine [2]. I wasn't planning on writing an article on it myself, but I could make a quick stub perhaps. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How many pages link to that red link? Is it a realistic target? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nineteen. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing, but are they all articles written by you? If you seriously believe this topic isn't covered elsewhere, you should write a stub, at least. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: It seems that I did write 17 of them myself and expanded the other 2 by a lot. Anyway, Abandoned mine drainage‎ is blue now. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rodw An interesting list, however so far outside my knowledge base I'd appreciate a little clarification:

  • Could/should the names of the tributaries which are wikilinked in the table by wikilinked in the lead on 1st usage?
  • Done.
  • Who designates rivers as "impaired waterbodies", is there a quality control agency & how is that defined?
  • Clarified.
  • Done.
  • In the table is "Distance from Mouth" (which is wikilinked to River mile) the distance to the mouth of the tributary and how is this different to length? I've read "The river mile is not the same as the length of the river, rather it is a means of locating any feature along the river relative to its distance from the mouth, when measured along the course (or navigable channel) of the river" but I still don't understand the difference.
  • The river mile simply indicates how far upstream of the mouth of Shamokin Creek is the confluence of a given tributary. For instance, it's 2.58 miles from the mouth of Little Shamokin Creek to the mouth of Shamokin Creek, and this has nothing to do with the length of Little Shamokin Creek.
  • I'm not sure if making the "Mouth Coordinates" sortable is going to be any use to anyone reading it.
  • Okay. Done.
  • Note 1 includes an external link (to Chapter 93 of the Pennsylvania code) could this be turned into a reference?
  • I don't think it's possible to next ref tags in that manner, at least using conventional reference methods. I've seen it done in a few places, but I've got no idea how it works.
  • Reference 1 to the National Map Viewer takes me to various map sources of the USA, but being from the other side of the Atlantic I wouldn't even know how to find Pennsylvania. Would it be possible to link to a specific map or area?
  • Ref 3 (Watershed restoration...) doesn't have a publisher - looking at the document it appears to be "DEP Bureau of Watershed Management" but what is DEP?
  • Added publisher.

Some of these may be because of my lack of understanding of US terminology and regulatory systems, but there could be other readers worldwide who might need a little more explanation as well.— Rod talk 19:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodw: Thank you very much for the review. I believe I have addressed your comments. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the changes.— Rod talk 20:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodw: I made the changes, but somehow forgot to hit 'save page'. Try now, I've also fixed the notes section. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I see the changes now. I've struck most of them except the column header "Distance...". I've also just noticed Ref 6 (Gazetteer of streams) doesn't have a publisher.— Rod talk 07:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodw: Personally, I think that your suggestion would be a bit too unwieldy for a column header. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I din't understand what it meant and therefore others may not. If it is too many words for a column header a note could be used to explain that it is distance from the mouth of Shamokin Creek.— Rod talk
@Rodw: Done. (though I don't think it really helps anything). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the link to Main stem is that useful - certainly not a phrase I'm familiar with - but after looking at the article on it wouldn't Susquehanna River be the man stem in this case?— Rod talk
@Rodw: Fine. Done now. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for changing the column header. I still see Ref 6 - Gazetteer of Streams without a publisher.— Rod talk 18:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • "Shamokin Creek, a 32.4-mile long creek flowing through Northumberland County, Pennsylvania, in the United States, into the Susquehanna River." Shouldn't the start be "Shamokin Creek is a 32.4- mile long creek..."?
  • In the Watershed area column, Little Shamokin Creek has one digit after the period when all of the other creeks have two. I understand that the first number is a zero, but I think it would be better to have two digits throughout, for consistency.
  • Actually, the second table's lone entry has a similar issue, so I was partly mistaken above. I still think that, if the column next to this one can provide two digits throughout, this one can as well. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: Thanks for your feedback. I have modified the wording of the first sentence. However, in response to your second and third comments, the source only gives the areas of basins over 10 square miles to the nearest tenth of a mile, not the nearest hundredth, as it does for basins of less than 10 square miles. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 02:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Because the sources don't give the hundredths I asked for, I can't blame the list for not including them. My comments have all been responded to, and I'm comfortable that the list meets FL criteria, and that it merits its own article since the AfD closed as a keep. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this nomination as Passed. --PresN 16:53, 9 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_tributaries_of_Shamokin_Creek/archive1&oldid=1076195977"