Talk:Nanticoke Creek/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice article. Will review. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• Explain the term "impaired" for water bodies. It may not be apparent at first.
• You link Askam Borehole in the main text. Repeat in lead.

• Done.

• Also explain acid mine drainage, or link it if possible. If linked elsewhere, remove the link and link it at first mention (here as well as in main text)
• If possible try to link the locations mentioned. Not just in the lead, but also throughout the article.

• That would result in an unsightly sea of redlinks.

I said "if possible". If it is all redlinks then don't. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• What are Wisconsinan Outwash and Wisconsinan Till?

• Linked.

• Who designated it as Coldwater Fishery and a Migratory Fishery?
• However, it is relatively lacking in aquatic life. Relative to what?

• Relative to other streams, naturally.

Course

• Could you give the distances covered in at least some of the turns?

• That would cause it to become overlong and really isn't necessary.

Don't you think it will look more comprehensive, like the rest of the article? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It isn't information that generally goes in the course section.

• Link mouth and confluence. They must be linked at first mention, and if also linked elsewhere those links should be deleted.
• "Tributaries" section looks like repetition to me. No need for a separate subsection.

• Again, it isn't.

Hydrology

• What is AML?

• Unabbreviated.

• Convert templates needed.
• Link discharge at first mention.

• It already is, in the infobox.

Infobox is not part of the main text. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• You can combine paras 1, 2, 3 into one. Too many paragraphs look essay-like and may make the reader lose interest.

• No, I cannot because it would be awfully long for a paragraph. Better to have some readers lose interest than have others unable to find what they're looking for.

• I strongly suggest that you summarize the facts from the source and clearly state the implications. Try to include lesser number of values. That should make the section more informative in its briefness.

• The information is cited to reliable sources and about the creek, so it's staying in.

Geography, geology and climate

• It is at the southwestern end of that coal basin. "The" would be better than "That". Link basin.

• No, because that leaves open the question of which coal basin. Linked.

• What is the meaning of synclinal?

• Linked.

• What is a mine pool?

• It should be self-evident.

• If you link rock formations here then also do so in the lead.

• Okay.

• Too many redlinks. Omit them and do add explanations of terms that could not be linked.

• Some were removed.

• Once again do not go for so many paragraphs. By the MOS you should summarize details.

• Once again, the information is useful in making the article comprehensive.

Watershed

• Wilkes-Barre should be linked at first mention. Did you mean west Wilkes-Barre when you wrote "Wilkes-Barre West"? If yes then you should write it as I have.

• It already is linked at the first mention of Wilkes-Barre. Wilkes-Barre West is a separate thing, i.e. a USGS quadrangle. And I did not mean "west Wilkes-Barre".

• Most of the watershed of Nanticoke Creek (67.3 percent) I think "most" is redundant when you already mention the percentage.

• I think it flows better as is.

History and etymology

• Nanticoke tribe sounds better than Nanticoke People.

• I don't use the term "Nanticoke people" anywhere.

Check it, you do. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see it now. Nanticoke People sounds better there.

• ...on some very early maps of the area How early?

• If I knew, I would say so.

I am afraid the sentence sounds vague. One can not ignore it. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

There simply isn't any information that can be added without original research and/or synthesis. Though it's probably sometime in the 18th century. It does not sound vague.

• However, its current name was appearing on maps as early as 1776. Better write "its current name started appearing since as early as 1776".

• I think the current wording is fine.

• Who are Bradsby, Mason F. Alden and John Alden? You need to identify them.

• They're not exactly notable, so I don't.

But it does seem weird when you suddenly have names popping up before you in the article. Even if they are insignificant something should be said about them. I request you to do so. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it would sound more weird if I started talking about random people in the middle of an article on a creek. An article doesn't need to delve into every term it mentions.

• Mining does not need a link, at least not when you do not add it in the beginning of the article or elsewhere.

• Unlinked.

• Please summarize. Too many paras do not look good.

• It's supposed to be comprehensive, again.

Biology

• Fish is too common to be linked.

• Unlinked.

• and 22,676 tons of carbon could be Convert template needed.

• Added.

• References : there seems to be some trouble with citation 4.

• Fixed.

OK so the article has considerably improved, and the issues raised by me have been addressed. This shall be a GA now. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)