Talk:Meadow Brook (Lackawanna River tributary)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 07:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"first-order stream." what's that?

Linked.

No images?

Well, it is mostly underground.

Be consistent, infobox uses "feet" and "ft", pick one.

Fixed.

"a few tenths of a mile" unencyclopedic, is that a quarter of a mile, a third of a mile, ...? Be specific.

Do you have a suggestion that doesn't involve turning that section into a big pile of numbers?

" Price-Pancost Coal Company in the 1890s, the construction of Interstate 81, and the construction of the Marywood University" do any of these entitites have suitable articles which can be linked

Sure. Done.

Generally the writing is a little clunky, lots and lots of short sentences, very short paragraphs, like a huge prose version of a list of factoids.

Merged a few paragraphs together.

" 630 cubic feet per second" conversions.

Done.

"In two measurements in April 2013, the temperature near Meadow Brook was found to be 54 and 59 °F (12 and 15 °C).[3]" I'm not sure I see the relevance of this at all. Isn't that pretty much entirely dependent on the weather conditions preceding the measurements? How does that enhance our readers' understanding of the brook?

It's common for people to measure water temperature of creeks and consider this relevant information for reports and the like. It's likely that these measurements are fairly typical for the season and time of day, but I edited it to sound less off.

Some overlinking issues, Interstate 81, culvert, etc.

Fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakob Coles (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to link common terms such as cemetery, squirrel, mouse etc.

OK.

" in the middle reaches of" what?

Clarified?

"The harvested trees were between 175 and 250 years.[4]" what?

It's just missing a word. Fixed.

Ref 7 is showing an error.

Fixed.

Split ref's using |30em.

Fixed.

A few issues, the main one being the readability really, it's a vast collection of factoids, not very engaging to read at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reviewer comments

The citation style that this article uses (a single long footnote for each source that lists cited pages in succession) is none of the accepted citation styles at Wikipedia:Citing sources or Help:References and page numbers. It's extremely ambiguous. Take what is ref [4] (Lackawanna River Corridor Association (2001)) for example: there is no way to judge from the citation which page is cited each time you invoke the reference.

Even obvious errors (the citation error in ref [7]) weren't fixed prior to nomination. This is inexcusable particularly when the same error was pointed out in the previous, failed GA review: Talk:Meadow Brook (Lackawanna River)/GA1.– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, where does this review currently stand? Does the article meet the GA criteria? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]