Talk:Roaring Brook (Lackawanna River tributary)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 09:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Grabbing this for a review. Miyagawa (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, lets get the review underway.
• Images: All licences are fine.
• Lead: Link Drainage basin to watershed

• Done.

• Also Moosic Mountains, even though it is a stub; and the Pocono Mountains

• Done.

• Course: See if you can break that large first paragraph into two, it'll make it easier to read.

• Done.

• I'd also just remove the carriage return from the single sentence (current) second paragraph and just have it be at the end of the new second paragraph

• Fixed.

• Hydrology: "The concentration of fluoride in Roaring Brook at Scranton was once measured to" - can we be anymore specific about when? Even if it's just a decade.

• That means that it was measured one time; the date's given in the previous paragraph.

• The final two paragraphs both start with "The peak annual discharge" - is there a way of changing one or the other to remove the repetition?

• Reworded.

• Geography, geology, and climate: You should move "Horace Hollister's 1885 History of the Lackawanna Valley described Roaring Brook as being "the noisiest tributary of the Lackawanna"." up to the other comments by Hollister - it looks out of place down towards the bottom of this section.

• Done.

• Watershed: If you're going to link Drainage basin in the article body, it should be up near the top when watershed is first mentioned.

• I don't know. I don't think there's anything wrong with spacing out he links a little.

• Merge the final two paragraphs since the last one is a single sentence.

• Done.

• Biography: Any chance of being a bit more specific with your linkage in "Wolves, bears, wildcats, and panthers" as I'm doubtful that all members of those families are found there.

• The article doesn't imply that either, and there's nothing more specific to be said. Most readers probably won't care about the exact species anyway.

• Notes: Can we get a cite for the note?

• Nested references would appear to break the note.

• Citations: There's quite a few instances of listing an organisation as an author - could you edit these and change those to publishers as they're not a specific individual(s) who wrote the text.

• No, oftentimes the organization literally is the author; there isn't a single individual or even several credited with writing it.

• Cite #13: Is the publisher the National Dam Inspection Program? If so, remove that from the title of the citation and place in a publisher field.

• No, part of the title.

• Cite #20: Publisher/Location details? Old books like that tend to have them printed on the bottom of the first page with text.

• Done.

• Cite #21 through 23: Need to be filled out with full source information, and in the case of the Life one, the article information.

• Better.

• Ok, placing this one on hold. Ping me back when you've had a chance to look or need more than 7 days. Miyagawa (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging @Miyagawa:. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Great, happy to promote on that basis. Miyagawa (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)