Talk:Grassy Island Creek/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Stedil (talk · contribs) 04:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, looks like the Lackawanna tributary articles you have nominated have managed to make their way all the way to the top of the backlog, so I'll review the first one. Stedil (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review progress and general thoughts will be updated in the table. Specific points to address are written below the table. Stedil (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2018 (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.	Some technical language due to copying too closely from the scientific source material.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Layout is a little scattered. Sections don't logically follow each other.
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.	some layout fixes regarding citing the specific page in each inline citation. Some dead links that can be fixed.
	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).	All sources are reliable. All information is attributed adequately, outside of formatting issues (see 2a)
	2c. it contains no original research.	All info is cited.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	see 1a.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	hasn't been edited much since 2015. Some small updates to history section may be needed for recent events.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays on topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Not a particularly controversial topic, other than wastewater section, which represented multiple view points neutrally.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	not a high-traffic or controversial subject.
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.	No images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	It would be useful to the article to upload/insert an image of the creek, if available.
	7. Overall assessment.	A few issues to address, but nothing major. Update: due to lack of response, article has failed. Unfortunately, this article is not quite GA standard as it stands now, so revisions are necessary before renomination.

Reference Check

I can't seem to get source 1, The National Map, to load. Perhaps the USGS has an updated version of The National Map available that isn't web archived.
Reference #3 (Lackawanna River Watershed Conservation Plan) - list, specifically, what page number each piece of information comes from. For example: "Their lengths are 0.8 miles (1.3 km), 0.3 miles (0.48 km), 0.5 miles (0.80 km), and 0.5 miles (0.80 km), respectively" - comes only from pg. 239-240, not from all of the page numbers listed. See WP:CITEPAGE for ideas of how to do this. You may also find WP:PAGELINKS to be helpful.
"A 1952 report" cited page number is incorrect. Grassy Island Creek is on page 25 of the report, not 23. The link needs to be fixed, too.
"At one point, it lost all of its base flow to deep mines except during storm events" dead link.

Language clarity

"upriver of its mouth" what is "its" referring to? Is it the Grassy Island Creek or the Lackawanna?
"are designated as impaired" impairment is a technical term. Please define for a general audience, per WP:NOTJARGON
"It meets its total maximum daily load requirements" What is meant by "meets" - does it mean that the amount of "it" is at the maximum, or does it mean that "it" is compliant with the requirements by being below the total maximum? Some additional clarity needed. The "it" is also unclear. Does "it" refer to the creek, the amount of manganese, or all pollutants? Please rephrase.
Define "daily load" for a general audience.
Define "alkalinity" for a general audience.
Define "flow loss/base flow" for a general audience.
"at one point, it lost all of its base flow" 'At one point' is vague. When, specifically, did it happen?
Rephrase: "either on developed land and impervious surfaces, or mining lands with rapid permeability." Copied from source. Convert to less technical language, especially "rapid permeability."
Define, or rephrase, "coal measures" for a general audience (keep the wikilink).
Define/rephrase "anthracite seam" for a general audience.
"the drainage basin is designated as a Coldwater Fishery and a Migratory Fishery" permanent dead link. Replace source, if possible.

Broad Coverage

any updates on the powerplant permit? I think I saw an article about it written earlier this month here.

Layout

Here's a suggested reordering of the sections in the article:
- Lead
- Course
- Watershed
- Geography/Geology - (course, watershed, and geography all describe the river's location and area of influence)
- Hydrology
- Biology - (geology, hydrology, and biology all describe the properties of the river)
- History and recreation (describes how the river, based on its location and properties, has been used).

That's it. I'll put it on hold for now. Let me know when you're finished. Stedil (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakob Coles: It has now been one week since the review was completed. I see you haven't made any contributions since the review opened, so I'll give you another week to respond. Let me know if you're working on it. Stedil (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing the review now. When you return, make sure to fix the above before renominating. Stedil (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]