Jump to content

Talk:Solomon Creek

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Solomon Creek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PointsofNoReturn (talk · contribs) 02:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I will be reviewing this article in the coming days. It may take about a week. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General Comments[edit]

I would like to address a few issues before doing an official review. These should be relatively easy to fix: PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The infobox could have more information. It is lacking source and mouth coordinates, source and mouth elevation, and discharge information. The coordinates could be found on google maps. The elevations can be found here: www.daftlogic.com/sandbox-google-maps-find-altitude.htm. Discharge statistics can be found in USGS waterflow data here [1].
  • You mentioned the Laurel Run Mill Fire in the article. Perhaps you could expand on it a bit in the history section of the article and maybe even write a small stub.

Official Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citations to reliable sources:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This article is pretty close to good article status. I will detail my review below. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Passes. Good job. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed Explanation of the Review[edit]

Criteria 1a:

  • The hydrology section may be too hard to understand for most readers. For example, "The load of iron is between 0 at sites SC04 and SC03 and 9,624 pounds (4,365 kg) per day at the Buttonwood Tunnel." I am not sure most readers would know where those sites are or what a "load of iron" on a river is. The section has alot of good content, but perhaps it needs some revisions.
  • I fixed the specific example you mentioned and also specified the locations of the sites where possible. The load of iron in a stream is the weight of dissolved iron that flows through it in a given time (usually a day). --Jakob (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good job editing it so far. I still see site notations such as SC06 listed in the text in the third paragraph. Perhaps you could remove those details there too? Also, perhaps you should specify what a load of iron on the creek is in the text. Getting better though. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broken wikilink in the history section about the Laurel Run Mine Fire
  • link to one disambiguation page with the word runoff in the soils subsection of the geology section.
  • "It picks up Pine Creek and passes through Wilkes-Barre mountain and then through Ashley" from the course section. "Passes through" seems a little awkwardly worded. Maybe "passes by"?
Really? Perhaps that should be detailed in the course section. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hydrology section and geology section seem to be closely paraphrased to Source 1. I cannot do a document comparison because source 1 is way too large. Rewording might be necessary.
  • Try this for a document comparison. I looked at the top 3 results and reworded a couple of things, but most of them seem to be coincidences or unavoidable (terms, names of organizations and places, etc.). --Jakob (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. That works for me. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good if the infobox had discharge statistics in it, with average, max and min discharge. Mentioning it in the text is good enough if the infobox does not have a parameter for discharge.
  • Double paragraph space created between the second to last paragraph and the last paragraph of the history section.

Criteria 1b:

  • The lead may need to be expanded. Perhaps some key points about the iron and coal mining in the watershed and pollution.

Criteria 2a:

  • See the section below this one that is not part of the review. Orphaned references are listed below.
  • Reference 18 seems to have a citation error.

Criteria 2b:

  • It might be good to indicate the pages used in source 1 in the reference template. The document is over 100 pages. Same for the books and other long sources.

Criteria 2c:

  • Passes.

Criteria 3a:

  • A segment on the Laurel Run Mine Fire would be an interesting addition to the history section. It is also mentioned in the lead, so it probably should be mentioned in the article too in greater detail.

Criteria 3b:

  • No deviations from relevant information.

Criteria 4:

  • passes

Criteria 5:

  • passes

Criteria 6a:

  • The engraving is a free image. No issue there.

Criteria 6b:

  • There is a lack of images besides the 1805 engraving in the article. Perhaps an image of a fish could work. Pictures of the river would also be helpful too.
  • I found a picture of Solomon Creek during a quick flickr search. It's a free image located here [2]. This might make a good infobox picture and the 1809 engraving could go into the history section.
  • I'm pretty far away from the creek and it's winter now, so I doubt there are any interesting fish to photograph there. I've only even seen fish in an creek I've written an article on once as far as I know. --Jakob (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps shrinking the infobox picture a bit, although that is not too important. Images are good enough now. Good job.

Overall: This article has some work to do, but I think it can be done. I will hold it for the standard 7 days starting from today. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scheduling[edit]

I will be away for two days starting tomorrow. This article seems close to being promoted. If need be, I will extend the hold timer two days to make up for the loss of time, although I think the article will be promoted soon anyway. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=01537500&agency_cd=USGS
  2. ^ https://www.flickr.com/photos/aidanmorgan/2178554374/in/photolist-dis9NP-dis7BJ-eKNdGq-6gAsX3-4jvDjj-bRHoMB-52encf-52a7qZ-7Sso1F-d74HtN-nBXGL-5V8Gm1-dis5BF-eFLELW-6voRaU-7SspFD-5V4har-4jvEjj-5V8FWE-bv1y3m-6nk32J-6nfTU2-c2m1GG-4Fwjtt-cBfmtE

Orphaned references in Solomon Creek[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Solomon Creek's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nationalmap":

  • From West Branch Pine Creek: United States Geological Survey, The National Map, retrieved September 20, 2014
  • From Little Pine Creek: United States Geological Survey, The National Map Viewer, retrieved September 16, 2014

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Solomon Creek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solomon_Creek&oldid=1203466163"