Talk:Tangascootack Creek/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 17:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
I'm not that familiar with river and creek related articles, but couldn't this sentence "Tangascootack Creek is 8.48 miles (13.65 km) long.[3]" be merged into the following paragraph?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Jakob (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? I'm still seeing this as a separate paragraph.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were talking about the one in the lead. I've fixed it in the course section too. --Jakob (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A number of mining villages existed in the Tangascootack Creek watershed between 1845 and 1870.[20]" Since the next paragraph is about mining around Tangascootack Creek, this isolated, one-sentence paragraph could be merged into the following paragraph.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Jakob (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Watershed" section still repeats "A small amount of the watershed, less than 1%," which was a problem the first GA reviewer found.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Jakob (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I used Earwig's tool to check for close paraphrasing, and brought up nothing.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Follows manual of style.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
Has a references section, and the references follow a consistent format.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citations to reliable sources:
What is currently citation 12, dealing with the amount of coal near the creek, should be cited to page 13, not 11, as the previous review highlighted.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Jakob (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything about the absence of Mauch Chunk red shale on page 27 of this source, or about brown sandstone.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page number changed to 49. --Jakob (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cite 23, this link, is a deadlink.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a working link now. --Jakob (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cite 24, on the meaning of the creek's name, should be page 40, not 100.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Jakob (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
Content is a summary of sourced material.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Deals with all of the major aspects. However, the previous reviewer noted that they wanted to know more about the geological history of the creek, especially prior to records of human settlement. As a budding historian, I think that this reviewer was incorrect to request that this be in the "history" section, as history refers to the written record. Perhaps under geology?
When I created this article, I added all the information I could find. However, since I'm better at finding information these days, I'll look again. --Jakob (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@3family6: I didn't see anything. As you can probably see, though, there is a geography/geology section. --Jakob (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. I just wanted to make sure that this question was answered, as I didn't see it resolved on the previous review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Stays focused on the creek.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Nothing unbalanced here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Highly stable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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:
Not applicable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Not applicable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: Passed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pass or Fail:
Jakec, that is what I've found so far. I need to go over the citations and references still, however. I want to carefully check for close paraphrasing especially.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My review is complete. There are still a few issues to be addressed, but nothing major.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@3family6: Everything has been fixed now. --Jakob (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]