Jump to content

Talk:Catawissa 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:Catawissa Creek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Folklore1 (talk · contribs) 18:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I perform the review, I will update the following table. Please look below the table for my questions and comments. Folklore1 (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. See notes below for corrections applied.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Properly supported by references
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). See notes below for corrections applied.
2c. it contains no original research. no original research
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. sufficient coverage
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). reasonable level of detail
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. consistently neutral tone
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. no recent edit wars
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. 1 public domain and 3 Creative Commons 3.0 images
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. relevant images with suitable captions
7. Overall assessment.

Hydrology

[edit]

The first five paragraphs of this section present hydrology statistics in the form of dry, repetitively structured text. It's boring and hard to read. I think a table would be a more readable alternative. Folklore1 (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly better, but still very repetitive. Too many paragraphs begin with "At the", "At a", or "At". I still think a table would be more appropriate than text for this section, because all these paragraphs do is present statistical data for a list of locations. Folklore1 (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even better now. I'll try to get it further improved, if you want. --Jakob (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still recommend a table, but I think the text has improved just enough to qualify for GA. So, I'm going to call it  Done. Consider using a table if you'd like to improve the article further after the GA review. Folklore1 (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

[edit]

The second paragraph of this section begins with numeric characters. I suggest reoganizing the sentence so that it doesn't start with numerics. Folklore1 (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Course

[edit]

"Catawissa Creek rises in strip mines" is a bit unclear. What is happening? Is it flowing up to the surface from somewhere below? Folklore1 (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"past the geographical features Round Head and Blue Head" seems to have a word missing. Folklore1 (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph of this section contains a sentence beginning: "The takes a sharp turn" Folklore1 (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. --Jakob (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early history

[edit]

"Historically" is kind of vague. When, approximately? Folklore1 (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably before European colonization of the area in the late 1760s to early 1780s. --Jakob (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced this sentence with a short paragraph mentioning the original Native American inhabitants, and the meaning of Catawissa as explained in the referenced source. That's interfering a little more than I usually do with a review, so please take a close look and let me know if it looks okay. Folklore1 (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. I didn't know that fact, although this seems to contradict what you wrote about the etymology of "Catawissa". --Jakob (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Growing fat" seems more a more likely interpretation, because the reference source identifies a specific language.  Done Folklore1 (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modern history

[edit]

I suggest replacing "and connecting Catawissa and Pottsville" with ", connecting Catawissa with Pottsville" to cut back on unnecessary "and" occurences. Folklore1 (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Historically, there was a paper mill existed" is vague and ungrammatical. Folklore1 (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The grammar error has been corrected, but the mill's time period is still vague. I think even an approximate time period would be better than "Historically". Folklore1 (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Historically, the Catawissa Water" is just vague.Folklore1 (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something just a little more specific than "Historically"? Folklore1 (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Folklore1 (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"in the late 20th and 21st centuries" is a bit confusing. Should that be changed to "late 20th century and early 21st century"? Folklore1 (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. --Jakob (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Folklore1 (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watershed

[edit]

I suggest replacing "The communities Sheppton and Oneida are also" with "Sheppton and Oneida are also" so we don't have two consecutive sentences beginning with "The communities". The paragraph will be easier to read. Folklore1 (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of this section might flow more smoothly if the first two sentences are combined. I suggest replacing the period with a colon at the end of "ranges through four counties" and removing "They are" from the second sentence. Folklore1 (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the fourth paragraph could also be improved by combining two sentences. Remove "They are called" and attach the tunnel names to the previous sentence with a colon or maybe "known as". Folklore1 (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Five consecutive sentences in the fourth paragraph begin with "The". That's awfully repetitive. I suggest modifying the sentence structure of two or three and/or starting a sentence with the tunnel name (without preceding by "The"). Folklore1 (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of this section has two consective sentences beginning with numeric characters. Ouch! Folklore1 (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. --Jakob (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flora and fauna

[edit]

In the second paragraph of this section, "Historically" seems vague. Folklore1 (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation

[edit]

Should "lowdam" be "low dam"? Folklore1 (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's how it's spelled in the source. --Jakob (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

With citations to book sources, please include the specific page where the information can be found. This can save a lot of time for reviewers and other people who might want to look up this information. I added the page number to a book reference cited in the second paragraph of the lead section. Fortunately, the link to Google still pointed to the proper page. Folklore1 (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)  Done[reply]

The citation for "Remediating the Audenreid Mine Tunnel Discharge" does not mention the name of the work, publisher, or author. This can be a problem at a later date if the web address for this publication changes. Work, publisher, and author can help us to find the archive where the article was moved if the current link goes dead. Folklore1 (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Folklore1 (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please added the appropriate page number to the citation for John H. Brubaker's book. Folklore1 (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Folklore1 (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Folklore1 (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the publisher's name for *Report of Progress*. Folklore1 (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Folklore1 (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The citation to *Soil Survey* needs a few more details. Folklore1 (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Folklore1 (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The citation to "Schuylkill Groups Seek Waterway Grants" should give the publication's name. Folklore1 (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Folklore1 (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the publication name for "County gives out watershed grants". Folklore1 (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Folklore1 (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Folklore1: Mostly fixed. Page numbers added for all but one of the Google Books cited. The remediating the audenried tunnel source already had a title, but no listed author. I added the publisher instead. --Jakob (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Folklore1: Report of progress citation fixed. --Jakob (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Catawissa 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 Catawissa 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 "battle":

  • From Hemlock Creek: J.H. Battle (1887), History of Columbia and Montour Counties, Pennsylvania, retrieved December 13, 2013
  • From Mahoning Creek (Susquehanna River): J. H. Battle (1887), History of Columbia and Montour Counties, Pennsylvania, retrieved 2013 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

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⚡ 15:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these references are effectively identical. Folklore1 (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrology section

[edit]

This really needs to be in table form - as it is in the reference. Also the acidity/alkalinity needs further clarification as for acidity: A total of 6,938.4 pounds (3,147.2 kg) flow through the creek for example is rather confusing mainly as acidity is not defined and the term simply redirects to acid.
The section doesn't really discuss hydrology - rather it is simply a tabulation of dissolved ions. Needs more along with some discussion of the tabulated data. As is should be renamed dissolved metal load and acidity. Vsmith (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section is basically aquatic chemistry and for chemistry aluminium is the spelling per WP:ALUM. In addition the redundant milligrams per liter was changed to mg/L following the first usage. No reason was provided for the recent revert of that. Also the section uses mixed units mg/L and lbs/day - needs addressing. Vsmith (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Catawissa 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Catawissa 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) 03:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catawissa_Creek&oldid=1206576887"