Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)

[edit]
Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because several months ago it failed FAC spectacularly. I've expanded it a lot and fixed many of the issues raised at the previous FAC. Before diving into FAC again, hopefully I can get some advice/help here to make sure it meets the standards.

Thanks, --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 12:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be so slow in reviewing this. Congrats on the GA, and for all your hard work on this article. I do think this still needs a fair amount of work before it can become a FA. Here are some suggestions, I will likely do this in stages over the next day or two.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and suggestions to follow. There are multiple FAs on streams that may be good models, like Fanno Creek, which was just on the Main Page earlier this month. I have written three FAs on tributaries of the West Branch Susquehanna River - they are older FAs but may be useful for ideas.
  • The lead is a summary of the article and as such usually is not cited at all, except for direct quotations and extraordinary facts. Alternatively the lead can be cited like any other part of the article, but the current lead is a mix of some sentences with refs and some without.
  • Current refs 2, 3, 5, and 6 are cited only once (in the lead) which seems odd, since the lead should not have anything that is not repeated in the article itself.
  • The most difficult FA criterion for most articles to meet at WP:FAC is 1a, a professional level of prose. This is not badly written, but it could be much better. For example, in the lead, the first three sentences all begin with "Fishing Creek" or spot the needles repetition in "Fishing Creek drains parts of five counties. These counties are Columbia County, Pennsylvania; Montour County, Pennsylvania; Sullivan County, Pennsylvania; Luzerne County, Pennsylvania; and Lycoming County, Pennsylvania." (it could just be something like Fishing Creek drains parts of five Pennsylvania counties: Columbia, Montour, Sullivan, Luzerne, and Lycoming.
  • The lead should be a summary, so my rule of thumb is that every section header and subheader should be mentioned in the lead in some way (even if with just a phrase or word). I do not see any mention of the many tributaries by name, or things like pH, metals, and nonmetals in the water.
  • There are several places where the article seems to contradict itself or rely on outdated information - in the lead what does this mean "There are three different public sites of Fishing Creek and a fourth is planned as of 2007."? It is nearly 2014, so why is there still a mention of a planned 2007 project in the lead? Also what exactly is a "public site" in this context? A park? A fishing area or boat access ramp?
  • I know the bridges better than the creek, but sadly Welle Hess Covered Bridge No. 91 and the Bittenbender Covered Bridge are no longer standing, plus the article misses Twin Bridges-West Paden Covered Bridge No. 121.

More to come, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I have seen them and am working on them.
  • I've removed citations from the lead except for two, which are used to source a quote and a potentially disputable statement.
  • I fixed the specific examples of awkward prose that you mentioned here. I'll see what I can do about the rest.
  • Added in tributary and chemical hydrology info to the lead.
  • Removed the information on the fourth project planned.
  • Added statement that the Welle Hess bridge does not exist anymore. The Twin Bridges are covered in the section on Huntington Creek.

-- --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 13:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • WP:LEAD says the lead should not be more than 4 paragraphs. My suggestion is to wait until all the work on the rest of the article is done, then go back and check the lead to see if it is a proper summary.
    • I made the list of counties in the lead less repetitive per my suggestion above. Feel free to tweak any of my edits.
    • Bittenbender Covered Bridge is in the article as if it still stood (I wish that were true).
    • There is no mention of the West Twin Bridge in the article, the only mention and link is to the East Twin Bridge.
    • Need to think about completeness (a FA criteria) - if former bridges are included in the article, should all former bridges be mentioned? If so, there will likely be many more to add.

I will make more comments later on other parts of the article today, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruhrfisch: Removed nonexistent covered bridges, added in the link to the West Twin Bridge. Also merged two paragraphs together, so now the lead is 4 paragraphs. I changed public sites to tracts of public property, which, as far as I can tell, is what they are. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 22:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Josve05a

[edit]
    • Following up on the above comments, I wondered if you could use "milligrams (mg)" or "miiligrams per liter (mg/L)" the first time (followed by "(mg)" or "(mg/L)" to show the abbreviation), then just use "mg" or "mg/L" thereafter.
    • pH and concentration of hydrogen ions are measuring the same thing (though they express them differently - pH is a logarithmic scale based on concentration of hydrogen ions). Does the article really need both sets of readings? Also, why is pH its own subsection, since it is also a measure of a dissolved chemical?
    • The whole dissolved chemical subsection is very repetitive and it seems to me as if it could be edited to make it less repetitive and somewhat tighter. I can try this if you would like - just say the word.
@Ruhrfisch: I apologize it took me so long to get back - I was trying to take a wikibreak for a couple of days. It would be great if you could make the dissolved chemical section less repetitive. Thanks. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 12:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK< will do. I have some other comments / suggestions too, just really busy IRL. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
  • I like the lead image (and took it) but it is from the creek bank beneath the bridge, not from the bridge itself (as the bridge is much higher than the stream)
  • Why not wikilink West Branch Fishing Creek and East Branch Fishing Creek?
  • Looking at the official PennDOT map of Columbia County, the mouth is in both Bloomsburg and Montour Township - [1]. Rupert is in Montour Township.
  • Why is the length metric (km) first, then English (mi), but the elevations and area are given as English first, then metric? I assume English then metric is preferred as this is an American stream.
  • I have a copy of the Pennsylvania Gazetteer of Streams Part II and it gives the source elevation as 920 feet. The ref is
Shaw, Lewis C. Pennsylvania Gazetteer of Streams Part II (Water Resources Bulletin No. 16). Prepared in Cooperation with the United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey (1st ed.). Harrisburg, PA: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources. p. 131. OCLC 17150333.
  • The USGS GNIS says the mouth elevation is 456 feet [2]. The Pennsylvania Gazetteer of Streams Part II gives it as 450 feet. I would consider either more reliable than Google maps.
  • I looked at three stream FAs: Fanno Creek, White Deer Hole Creek and Colorado River. All give the coordinates for the source and mouth in the box, and the discharge as well. I think they all use River - not sure if Infobox River can do all these.

Well, that's a start, much more to come. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits, the box still needs some work though.

  • The tributaries in the box are messed up (West and East Branches are both listed twice).
  • The 3 example FAs list all counties (or states for Colorado) in the watershed, so why only Columbia County?
  • Why is the Susquehanna River listed twice - example FAs only list the destination body of water at mouth
  • Sample FAs have citations after the entries, not at the bottom
  • Why not use the ref I gave (above)?
  • Where is the watershed area from? The Pennsylvania Gazetteer of Streams Part II lists it as 385 square miles. So does this more recent Pennsylvania Gazetteer of Streams
  • Why list the elevation of the source but not the mouth?
  • Why not give coordinates for source and mouth (like the example FAs do)?
  • The watershed map is missing Ganoga Lake which drains into the Ganoga Branch of Kitchen Creek.

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1.  Fixed
  2.  Fixed
  3.  Fixed
  4. That apparently causes a script error in the infobox.
    Not if you use the correct parameter - I fixed this for the gnis ref Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I do use it.
    Sorry, but where in the references or anywhere in the article is it cited? I searched and did not see it. Per WP:CITE it should be in the article so interested readers know where to look for the data. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It was cited to http://fcwa.net/creek/, but since the Gazetteer seems a little more reliable I'll change it once it loads (which is taking several years).
  7.  Fixed now
  8. They were there, but didn't show up. I've moved them to the source_location and mouth_location parameters.
    I fixed them Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I would have to ask the uploader to fix that.
Responded. --Jakob (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chiming in on the lake question. Does Ganoga Lake have some special significance for Fishing Creek? I can add it to the map, but it's a smaller lake than I'd normally include at that scale and would just show up as a dot. Currently the article doesn't even mention the lake. Kmusser (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the beautiful map. I was looking at the watershed web page and its map is about the same scale (on my computer) as yours full-scale and the watershed map shows both Ganoga Lake and Lake Jean in Ricketts Glen State Park as recognizable outlines - see here, at the bottom of the page. That said, I am not neutral here, as I am the main author of the Ganoga Lake article - I just noticed it was not on the map. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Course
  • I would split this into two paragraphs. According to the Gazetterr II, the creek flows mostly south for about 14 miles, then mostly southwest for about 17 miles, so perhaps the Course section could be in a paragraph for each (turn at Forks, where Huntington Creek enters)
  • I would put the township and elevation of the source in (like Fanno and White Deer Hole Creeks do)
  • I would also make references to highways where applicable, so the source is just south of PA 118, which will mean something to local readers. Or the Oxbox Lake is south of I-80, or PA 487 follows the creek for much of its course.
  • The online Gazetteer has river miles and watershed areas for each tributary. I would give river miles for each trib in the course (distance to the mouth). I can look these up for you if you want (I saved a PDF version on my computer a while ago).
  • When I wrote course descriptions, I would try to mention every prominent feature mentioned later as the stream passed it. This is done for some things, but I would mention the Oxbox lake, Kocher Park, etc.
  • I would also put the mouth elevation in, and tell the change in elevation
  • Only Colorado River of the model articles has a tributaries section and it is one section for all the tribs. I think a lot of FAC reviewers are against short subsections - most of the trib subsections are only two sentences, and the longest is only four lines on my computer.
  • What is the rationale for the order of the tribs in their section? I would put them in stream order (what a drop of water would flow past)

More to come Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruhrfisch:

  • 1) Done, split at the Fishing Creek Township/Orange Township border.
  • 2) Done
  • 3)It would be good if you could look those up. Thanks.
  • 4) Done for the two examples you gave.
  • 5) Done
  • 6) Fixed, tributaries now occupy only two sections (main tributaries and minor ones)
  • 7) Fixed

--Jakob (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry this review has taken so long, but I do not think this is ready for FAC yet. Here are as many general comments and a few specifics ones (not an exhaustive list)

  • Wikilinking is odd and inconsistent - just in the lead, why is Rupert linked, but not Montour Township or Bloomsburg? OR Sugraloaf Township is not linked in the Course section.
  • Why is the West Branch not even mentioned in the lead, when it appears to be about as big or bigger than the East Branch?
  • Course section description of the path seems a bit too detailed - it is not clear what scale all of the different directional changes are
  • How can Coles Creek be the first named trib? Aren't the East and West Branches the first two named tribs?
  • Typos - In soIn the southern part of this township, ...
  • In Course, I would mention only places that are mentioned again elsewhere in the article. So I might mention Zaners Bridge instead of Zaners (which is called "Zaner" later - which is it?) Also why mention Pealertown when it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article and does not even have its own article on Wikipedia.
  • The article is not internally consistent in places. So the Tributaries section intro says "The major tributaries include Little Fishing Creek, Green Creek, and Huntington Creek." Then the section has no paragraphs on Green Creek, and does have paragraphs on the East Branch (but not the West Branch), Kitchen and Hemlock Creeks (which are not mentioned as "major tribs"). What is the definition of major vs minor tribs? Also, I think a sub-trib is a trib of a trib (so Kitchen Creek is a sub-trib, but East Branch is not).
  • Raven Creek and Montour Run are on the map, so they should be in the Course section.
  • I am not sure what the purpose of the "Other tributaries" section is. The only information given for each is the name and the township (presumably fo the mouth?). This could be given in the Course section, and there the article is not consistent - it says Coles Creek enters Fishing Creek in Sugraloaf Twp, but the Other tributaries section says Benton Twp. Which is it?
  • The first sentence of Watershed is not consistent with the map - Fishing Creek drains all of Columbia County north of the Susquehanna River except for a small area in the eastern part of the county, which is drained by Briar Creek. but a strip in the west along the border with Montour County is not part of the Fishing Creek watershed.
  • Much of the material in the Watershed section is based on this ref, but that is only for Fishing Creek upstream of where West Creek joins it, not the whole watershed.
  • Seems odd to me that the Oxbow Lake section is bigger than the Watershed section (see WP:WEIGHT)
  • I already mentioned this, but pH and hydrogen ion concentrations are two measures of the same thing and should not be in different sections
  • Needs a copyedit. I can point out more, but need to go to bed. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruhrfisch: Replying point by point,

2. Fixed
4. Fixed
5. Specific example fixed. Will look for more.
6. I disagree. At least one FA course section includes features that are only mentioned there.
7. Fixed.
8. Raven Creek was already mentioned. Now Montour Run is as well.
9. The section has been merged into the tributaries section. Coles Creek issue fixed.
10. Fixed.
11. I disagree. Only one sentence in the watershed section is cited to that ref.
12. I know, but there's no good place to put it. The oxbow isn't notable on its own, but it would be a shame to remove referenced and encyclopedic information.
13. Hydrogen ion paragraph removed.

--Jakob (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Fishing_Creek_(North_Branch_Susquehanna_River)/archive2&oldid=1078819900"