Talk:Little Nescopeck Creek/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please avoid SHOUTING in the references, we don't need all those capital letters.

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead doesn't seem to cover the article as a whole, e.g. Geology, History and Recreation don't appear to get a look-in.

Reworked. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You link a common term like "stream" but not an uncommon one like "macroinvertebrate".

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"18 of these species..." avoid starting sentences with numerals.

That sentence is no longer present in the article. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid single-sentence paragraphs.

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent with the use of conversions, e.g. you convert everything the infobox and the Course section, but not later, e.g. in the Hydrology section, then you start converting again in the Geology section, and then stop in the Watershed section.

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is "daily load"?

It's presumably the weight of a given dissolved substance (typically a metal) that flows through the creek per day. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are you suggesting you don't know what a daily load is either? A definition or a wikilink (or both) should be provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The precision of these "daily load"s is too much, you don't need any decimal points at all, some would even recommend cutting to the nearest 10lb or whatever.

Precision reduced somewhat. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"a Mississippian Period rock" it looks much like this is really the Mississippian sub-period, not a capitalised Period.

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Amot Series" v "Basher series", consistency in capitalisation needed.

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are those series, what do they mean?

Added wikilink to soil series. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"and LNESC9. LNESC9 is upstream" avoid the quick repeat, perhaps "The latter is upstream..."

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link riparian zone.

Done. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"a woolen mill " isn't that a "wool mill", because wouldn't a "woolen (sic) mill" be a mill made of wool?

Actually, a woolen mill is apparently a thing, whereas a wool mill is not. I've wikilinked it. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, I didn't see "woolen mill" in the article which redirects from that, whereas Wool mill seems to be quite prevalent. Perhaps it's an ENGVAR thing again. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1998, there were plans to convert " what happened?
As ref 1 is so huge (333 pages!) and different parts are of it are used to reference around thirty statements in here, it would be advisable to separate out the refs and give them the actual page numbers.

This could be very difficult, but if it's critical to this article passing, I'll give it a try. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be too difficult, after all you must have found each reference when you wrote the article. We really ought not be placing the onus of verifying the references on our readers, at least not expecting them to find a needle in a haystack. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few issues so I'm placing it on hold for a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reviewing, but I think the disambiguation should be handled before this is a GA. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will move it when this review is done, so that the bot does not deliver a failure notice to my talk page again, as it did with Scotch Run. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you plan to move it to? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Little Nescopeck Creek B, naturally, to match Little Nescopeck Creek A. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasnt there a discussion that Little Nescopeck Creek (eastern Columbia County) or something like that would be better? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It still appears that issues are outstanding on this nomination, please ensure they are complete by 10 July. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakec: Will you be finishing this off? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page numbers are harder than you think; I'd have to read the whole document from start to finish, and at that point I may as well just start over with the article. It'd probably be a good idea for me to rewrite from scratch anyway; this was my first PA stream article and I was terrible at research when I wrote it two years ago. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that you'd like to withdraw this GA nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jakec: could you let me know how you wish to proceed please? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal would be the best course of action at the moment IMO. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll "fail" the nomination at this time. Good luck with the re-nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]