Talk:Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River tributary)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 17:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

On first pass, this looks strong--well sourced, comprehensive, and ripe for promotion. Thanks again for your work on it. I've marked a few quibbles below, and also made a few minor copyedits as I went; please check that I haven't inadvertently introduced any errors, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"whereas near in the lower portion of the watershed, " -- the "near in" here confuses me--shouldn't it be just one word or the other?

Fixed

"Fishing Creek drains parts of five counties. These counties are Columbia County, Pennsylvania; Montour County, Pennsylvania; Sullivan County, Pennsylvania; and Luzerne County, Pennsylvania." -- am I miscounting, or are there only four counties listed here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--I'd somehow forgotten to mention one of the counties in the watershed.

"Prehistory" -- I'm not sure about this as a section title. 1769 is a little late to call "prehistory"; what would you say to "Native American exploration and settlement"? It's a bit clearer.

Fixed--title changed to early history

"The first lots at the mouth of Fishing Creek were surveyed in 1769" -- you might make a clearer transition here by noting that British settlers were moving into the area in the 1700s.

Fixed

I'd suggest delinking some of the very common terms in the article, like soil, sand, gravel, bear, deer, cannon, school, beach, bridge, etc.; it's not necessary to link such basic definitions. But this isn't a GA criterion, though, so won't affect this review a bit either way.

Fixed

Also not an issue for GA, but consider fixing the bare link [1].

I'll get to the bare link in 9 or 10 hours. Thanks for reviewing! ^King Jakob _C2 01:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

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 minor clarity questions above.~~ Spotchecks show no copyright issues.
	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.
	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).	~~I'm concerned by the reliance on Google Maps for many facts (distances, etc.). Let me get a second opinion on this and check back in.~~ WP:RS/N archives indicate that Google Maps is an acceptable source for noncontroversial claims. Striking my above comment.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Thanks for the super-speedy response! This is a big pass.