Talk:Big Wapwallopen Creek

A fact from Big Wapwallopen Creek appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 April 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that three swimming holes on Big Wapwallopen Creek are the most dangerous ones in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Big Wapwallopen Creek.

Wikipedia

Big Wapwallopen Creek has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 13, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 12:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be starting the GA review of this article in the next day or so. I usually provide my feedback in sections over a day or two instead of everything at once, but feel free to respond/address any comments even before the review is complete if you want to. Let me know if you have any questions along the way. The GA review page is on my watch list so just post here to keep all conversations in one place. MPJ-US 12:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakec: - Starting the review, will be making updates over the next couple of days. MPJ-US 02:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Toolbox

I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.

Peer review tool

"milligrams" should be "milligram"

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you be more specific? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations~~Tool~~

Tool is gone, I have tried to google some of the sentences to see if anything comes up. I did not see anything other than stuff based on Wikipedia.

MPJ-DK, rather than Google search, please use the Dup detector in the toolbox—it checks for duplicated (copied) text between an online source and the article. This allows you to spotcheck a handful of online sources one at a time, so picking ones that support a whole section and/or are used frequently is a good strategy. In the case of books.google.com sources, taking a direct quick look at the referenced page is the way to go, since Dup detector (or Earwig, for that matter) has no way to look inside the book. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, great I did not realize that. I have checked the majority of the sources and found no issues. MPJ-US 18:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MPJ-DK: The tool is no more in the toolbox but you can still access it here [1]. I still use it. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation links

No issues Y

External links

Two dead links (Marked in red in the tool)
One Connection Issue (marked in blue)

Should all be fixed now. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources/verifiable

There are sources in the lead, the general guideline on leads and sources say that all sources should be in the main article itself, not the lead. Having them in the lead makes it look like that info is only in the lead, which it should not be.

One was there solely for DYK purposes, and has been removed. One was moved down to the history section. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For printed sources in general would it be possible to list the location of the publisher?

I already do? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference three - since it's 3 differnet page ranges would it be possible to break it into 3 separate citations, this way it's easier to indicate which section sources each statement?

I think that would be clunkier and less efficient, to be honest. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So doing a deep dive in the sources I look at a reference like #2, which also references three different sections. Checking against what it's supposed to source I am mystified what on page 29 or 38 actually covers in the article.? I don't see the Wapwallopen Creek listed on those pages? MPJ-US 19:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the tributaries. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 10 - the title of the source may be in all caps but Wikipedia guidelines recommends they are not in all caps in the reference.

Okay. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 22 - missing data on the source around publisher etc.

ok.

Reference 23 - same as above

ok

24 same

N/A

26 same

N/A

27 same

N/A

28 same

ok

Source 28 has an archive url that's blacklisted - which means the original source is not available and the archive is not good. Is the page listed on archive.org or something else?

I already checked archive.org and webcite. Nothing.

Still not a fan of a source that basically says "Hey here is a link to a Map app, go figure it out." that source 1

Better?

Broad in coverage

It's a creek article, it's got what you'd expect so yes Y

Neutral

At first look yes. If i find something I will mention it under "well written" Y

Stable

Yes, no sign of edit wars and contend dispute Y

Illustrated / Images

Looks legit to me, licenses in order Y

Well Written

Course

"It eventually tuns" should be "It eventually turns"

Fixed.

The fact that the last paragraph is just one sentence looks odd,

Don't think it would integrate well with any other paragraph.

Hydrology

Some of these figures are from 1975-76, is there nothing newer available?

There is not.

"The values on these years" - I don't think "on" is the right word here - "In" or "during" seem more appropriate

Changed.

"The peak annual discharge of Big Wapwallopen Creek at its mouth has a 10 percent chance of reaching 3350 cubic feet per second. It has a 2 percent chance of reaching 6550 cubic feet per second and a 1 percent chance of reaching 8400 cubic feet per second. The peak annual discharge has a 0.2 percent chance of reaching 15,000 cubic feet per second." that is a lot of examples - is it perhaps a bit over the top especially when adding details from the tributaries too? Seems almost like trivia overload? is this level of detail common in these types of articles?

A pretty high level of detail is suitable in these articles, as a lot of information is available.

Geography, geology, and climate

Is there a link for the term "physiographic province."??

It's basically just a geographical region.

"Each of the waterfalls is" should be "Each of the waterfalls are"

Okay.

"through glacial material" = "through the glacial material"

"Glacial material" has not yet been mentioned, so an article is required.

"Big Wapwallopen Creek is relatively small for a creek." - how about some context here" in what way smaller? compare to averages perhaps?

Tweaked.

"(the late Devonian)" = "(the late Devonian age)"

Pretty sure most people know what the Devonian is.

"three quarters" = "three-quarters"

This article is in American English.

"The old glacial valley of Big Wapwallopen Creek was broad and gently sloping.[12]" a one sentence paragraph, can it perhaps be worked in with other facts?

Done.

Watershed

100 year " = "100-year"

History

"Prince Maximilian of Wied visited area" = "Prince Maximilian of Wied visited the area"

Done.

"were under operation" = "were in operation"

Done.

I assume that "sawills" should be "sawmills"?

Done.

"in several properties" - the word "in" seems wrong here?

Done.

"Around this time," please clarify when please?

Done.

"to depth" either "to a depth" or "to the depth"

Done.

I believe "floodwaters" is two words?

Not necessarily.

Biology

"One such section is a 4.7-mile-long stretch of the creek from Crystal Lake to a powerline crossing upstream of Nuangola Road is Class A Wild Trout Waters for both brook trout and brown trout." poor sentence structure, the "one such" start does not match up with "is Class A"

Tweaked.

Sentence starting with "There are riparian forests" could be joined into the previous paragraph so all the "tree talk" is in the same paragraph to joint it up neatly.

Done.

Recreation

"The drinking water well for the camp is inactive.[10]" - not sure if that's important to the Creek article?

Okay, removed.

"In 2015, it opens" should be past tense

Tweaked.

General

Review complete, I will put on hold to allow for improvements. I will swing by and check off anything that looks addressed in the next day or so. Not that much to address, it's in good shape

Every issue listed before the "Well done" section appear to have been addressed Y and I see the last part being actively worked on too, excellent. MPJ-US 00:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakec: - I have not heard back from you if you are ready for me to re-review this?
- Excellent work, all looks addressed if I am not mistaken, happy to pass this. MPJ-US 01:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Big Wapwallopen 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]