Jump to content

Talk:Mahoning Creek (Susquehanna River tributary)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orphaned references in Mahoning Creek (Susquehanna River)

[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 Mahoning Creek (Susquehanna River)'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 "tmdl":

  • From Sechler Run: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (April 30, 2011), MAHONING CREEK WATERSHED TMDL Northumberland and Montour Counties (PDF), retrieved April 19, 2014 {{citation}}: line feed character in |title= at position 15 (help)
  • From Kipps Run: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (July 2012), Deerlick Run Watershed TMDL Columbia County, Pennsylvania (PDF), retrieved June 28, 2014

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⚡ 23:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation issues

[edit]
  • A good citation to a map should note the scale of the map, as well as the series, if applicable. {{Citation}} can't handle map-specific details, but {{cite map}} can, and with |mode=cs2, it can appear in the same style.
  • A good citation to Google Maps should include a link that takes the reader directly to the map that was consulted. Any editor can export a URL for the map he or she viewed by clicking the gear icon and selecting "Share or embed map". From there, a dialog box will pop up allowing the editor to copy and paste that URL into the |url= in {{google maps}}; to get the CS2-based output, again add |mode=cs2.
  • Access dates should be full dates, not just years. The idea behind providing it is so we can demonstrate both a date when it's known that the link worked, or to provide an analog to a publication date for online sources lacking actual publication dates. For sources, like Google Books-republished books, that are unlikely to go dead that contain a date of original publication, an access date is a bit superfluous, but many editors add them anyway for consistency. With a source like Google Maps, the access date becomes the publication date as well.
  • For cases where we consult copies of books on the Google Books website, we should still provide place of publication and publisher details, plus the page number(s) consulted. Adding |via=Google Books is another nice touch.
  • It is also beneficial to include ISBN or OCLC identifiers because Google does not always allow all readers to see the full book based on the location of the readers' IP addresses or other considerations. If a reader is not allowed to see the full text, the identifier number makes it easier to locate a print copy in a library. The identifier numbers can be found through the "Get this book in print"/"Find in a library" link provided on every Google Books item.

Imzadi 1979 → 12:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do prefer to keep the citations consistent, but it's no longer citing Google Maps anyway. As for the ISBN, I don't think ISBNs existed a century ago (when the book sources were written). As for the access date, I no longer remember exactly what date I accessed the sources. I guess it was sometime in June or July 2013. The newer sources have access dates. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mahoning Creek (Susquehanna River)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LeftAire (talk · contribs) 17:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I am going to review this article! My first geography article that I am to review, but hopefully the process is seamless! I'll have a review of what needs to be fixed within the next few days if not sooner. LeftAire (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sources are fine, but I think that the the ones that are from Google Books need to be listed by page number, etc. I can show you how to do it if you need help, and User:Imzadi1979 kind of alluded to that on the talk page, as I see....
    • Done. I also removed a possible misinterpretation that somehow lasted two years and ended up on DYK (!) way back in 2013. The sentence "At its time, it was one of the last Native American villages in its vicinity.", which refers to the old village mentioned in the second paragraph of the history section was being supported by this bit. I figured I'd ask for a second opinion. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a large number of one sentence paragraphs, but only a handful of them are necessary. The only ones that need to be kept are the ones in the History and Etymology section (excluding the sentence of the Watershed Association, it is out of place compared to the rest of the section. I suggest it being removed, relocated to another section, or further expanded).
  • Perhaps the second and third paragraphs for the History and Etymology section need to be combined. Among the talk of constructions are various types of mills, and the sentence with Philip Maus building the mill might as well be next to the first sentence mentioning him. Perhaps after the Phillip Maus was among the first settlers in Valley Township, Montour County, having settled there in 1769 sentence, you can list Maus later built a sawmill that significantly contributed to the construction of numerous wooden buildings in the vicinity.
  • Change Mr. Deen to John Deen, Sr.
  • I think that the article could benefit from some images of the wildlife. Perhaps add a picture of one of the bird or plant species? And maybe another picture of the creek someplace?


Overall
  • Well-written?
  • Prose quality:
  • Manual of Style compliance:

For the most part the writing seems fine, though I'm concerned about the use of 'It' being used so frequently. Perhaps that's a minor quibble of mine.

"It" is used 15 times, which comes out to slightly over 0.5% of all words. For comparison, 0.49% of the words in this FA at "it". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiable?
  • Reference layout:
  • Reliable sources:
  • No original research:
  • Broad in coverage?
  • Major aspects:
  • Focused:
  • Neutral?:
  • Stable?:
  • Illustrated, if possible, by images?
  • Appropriate licensing:
  • Relevance and captioning:
  • Pass or Fail?: .

I shall re-read either later today or tomorrow in order to see if I will potentially encounter errors or clarifications that I might have missed my first time around. Let me know if I have something mixed up in my assessment so far, and we'll try to work it out. Thanks for your patience (which has been quite lengthy given the nomination date, apparently)! LeftAire (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the second and third paragraphs being separate after re-reading, but is the sentence about the watershed really necessary? Please elaborate. (On a bit of a side note) Sorry for not responding sooner, I didn't realize you'd fix these errors so quickly...LeftAire (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LeftAire: It is necessary in my opinion; I've added a few sentences to it. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jakec: It's fine now. Excuse me if I was appearing to be too nit-picky. I'll go ahead and pass the article. Thanks for your quick responses, this has been the most seamless GA review I have encountered so far! LeftAire (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LeftAire: Thanks for the fast review. I did have one question though: what's your opinion in the possible misinterpretation I mentioned above. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jakec: Hmm...I think adding that they didn't disperse from the region until 1774 is useful. The end of the first sentence seems a bit abrupt and could benefit with a little more information about the Delaware Indians, though you don't have to go into detail about the purchase of the tract of land of that region if you want. My apologies for not responding sooner. LeftAire (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mahoning Creek (Susquehanna River). 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) 13:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mahoning_Creek_(Susquehanna_River_tributary)&oldid=1203846676"