Talk:Nescopeck Mountain

Jakec just so you know, the precise term is toponymy, not etymology. JackTheVicar (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Jakec --was looking to take this article's GA review. Would you mind? Two points before I do ...The name Nescopeck can't be Shawnee. Words in Shawnee cannot end in consonants according to David Costa who is the expert in the Shawnee language. Second, you mention the formations of the mountain, but not the orogeny that lifted it. I think the orogeny ought to be mentioned. JackTheVicar (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@JackTheVicar: No objection to you taking the GA review, especially since I have something like 50 articles that I'm waiting to nominate. I checked Walter Brasch's Columbia County Place Names, an extremely comprehensive and well-researched book on local geography, and found information that contradicts those claims. Only the snippet view is available on Google Books, but I'll quote the relevant passages: "Probably named for a Shawnee Indian village at the site of what is now known as the borough of Nescopeck in Nescopeck Twp. (Luzerne County). Nescopeck is probably an Anglicized deterioration of Neskchoppeek, itself composed of the root words tuppeek...and either niskeu...or neesiku...Thus, Nescopeck could be a corruption of the Shawnee for "dirty waters" or "black waters". Perhaps the language has changed in the meantime? Regardless, it is certainly a Native American word, so perhaps it can be changed to that. I also believe that I used all available information, and did not find any sources on its formation. If you know of any yourself, please let me know. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Jakec Native names often get butchered by well-meaning local historians...they aren't linguists. I run into it often. If that's the origin he's giving for the name, it wouldn't be Shawnee, it would be a Munsee name. JackTheVicar (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You may be right (I wouldn't know), so I have changed it from Shawnee to simply Native American. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 02:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Jakec out of curiosity, I emailed a colleague of mine, Ray Whritenour, who is a leading philologist specializing in Lenape, which Munsee is the northern dialect. He wrote to me moments ago saying: "It looks like Munsee, niiskpeek ("that which gets wet"), to me. The Moravian missionary, John Ettwein, said Nescopec meant "a deep, nasty hole." I assume, by "hole," he meant 'water hole.'" We see that hole reference in the name Walpack, near me, which referred to a "turn hole" at a bend in the Delaware. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

We can figure a way under WP:RS to make it workable within the article. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nescopeck Mountain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JackTheVicar (talk · contribs) 01:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• I will start my review sometime within the next 24–36 hours. JackTheVicar (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I was interested in reviewing this article as I have an interest in mountains in the Appalachians, I am currently sandboxing a draft to overhaul the Kittatinny Mountain article which I've been working on here User:JackTheVicar/sandbox/Box5 and likely will spend a few more weeks (maybe 2-3 months) before I'm satisfied enough to release into the wild. So, I'm particular about mountains. Right now, I think the article is C-class, while it doesn't need to be comprehensive (as an FAC would), I think the article is not developed enough to cover all the major aspects of the topic adequately under the GA criteria--what I ask for in some of my points below ought to be summarized within the article, the absence of such information stands out. However, I am willing to wait for a week or two if it will be appropriately remedied. JackTheVicar (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

General

• The Lat-Long coordinates don't match the USGS GNIS data. Where are the Lat-Long coordinates used in the article located along the ridge? Why is that point important on the mountain? (especially as opposed to those listed on USGS GNIS) Is it the summit/highest point? USGS GNIS database has 6 points listed [1] for the six quadrangle maps it covers--not just one that is mentioned in the article.
• Topo maps of the mountain show several 1600-foot spots, the article references 1604' as its height, USGS GNIS says 1594'. Which is its highest? I think more detail within the article should discuss the elevation of mountain, despite it being generally featureless.

Geography

• Nescopeck is described as the northern ridge in the Pocono region. The Poconos are not mentioned in the article.
• In your description of the water gap, you should mention the changes in elevation (it's rather drastic, at a 1000-feet in elevation)

Geology

• The page number needed for Williamson in footnote 12 is Pages 54 to 55 [2]
• The geology section is a little sparse--not mentioning the Ridge and Valley Appalachians of which Nescopeck is part of the Anthracite Upland Section. Perhaps these links might come in handy:
  • Bedrock geologic map of the Berwick quadrangle, Luzerne and Columbia counties, Pennsylvania provides more specific information than just formation stratiagraphy.
  • Pennsylvania Geology Online
• Further, how do these formations create the mountain--it is likely not a conformity over the Marcellus Formation (on which these formations rest).
• The map at Onondaga Formation contradicts its mention in the Nescopeck article, as it labels anything south of Port Jervis New York (the western edge of Shawangunk Ridge) as "similar formations", but not the delineated Onondaga Formation.
• I would like to see something about orogeny (I think Nescopeck, as part of the Appalachian Basin/Pennsylvania Salient is part of the Alleghenian Orogeny, but I'd have to check USGS and other reports to confirm). Usually information or orogeny belongs with mountains--not to the extent as it should with formations, but at least a summary.
• Between geology/geography/streams and valley sections, there should be discussion on which drainages/watersheds part of the mountain are in and how the mountain's topography and geology impacts those watersheds and local ecology.
• Further, because orographic lift is important in Pennsylvania and other Appalachian region weather patterns (especially the winters), there should be some discussion on how the mountain impacts local climate and weather patterns (you don't have a section for climate, though there ought to be one).
• As far as glaciation, the Appalachians exhibit evidence (especially in bedrock geology) from three different glacial episodes, the Wisconsinian being the most recent (ending 10,000-20,000 years ago) and leaving the most evidence behind. Your discussion of glaciation only mentions "an ice age" and two rather vague sentences. I think more coverage of glaciation (and especially its impact on carving the present shape of the mountain) would be important. Are there any remnant glacial lakes (several Appalachian ridges have them)?
• Further, in the geology discussion, you do not mention the types of rock--I am certain the formations are sedimentary rock formations (conglomerate, sandstone, etc.) and should mention how erosion shaped the mountain in the millennia after the last ice age.
• A "See also" template to Geology of the Appalachians might be appropriate.
• Out of curiosity, were there any sizeable fires on the mountain? Any major geological/seismic episodes? fault lines?

History and etymology

• I would try to incorporate This two-sentence paragraph (follows) into the first paragraph of the section where I think it would be apt and at greater effect. Nescopeck Mountain is most likely named for a Native American village called Nescopeck. The word nescopeck itself is a corruption of neskchoppeck, which may mean "dirty waters" or "black waters". I'm currently looking for sources on Munsee derivation for you as we discussed on the talk page, but I'm not going to require that for this GA review.
• A bit of discussion on Native American habitation would be called for - there's Paul Wallace's Nescopeck Indians (1948) (who seem to be a mixed-tribal unit of Susquehannocks (Munsee), Iroqouis and others), influences of the Iroquois in the region, John Moore's Bows, Bullets, and Bears might have a few stories--I know he writes that the Indians in the region were starving and fighting smallpox when the Moravians arrived. Bloomsburg University did an archaeological dig at the site of the Nescopeck village. See [3]
• Why was the top of the mountain devoid of trees in the middle of the 1800s - was it logging, or 18th- and 19th-century iron forges needing charcoal (which happened throughout NJ and NE Pennsy) or was it cleared to make it easier to prospect for coal mines? (Gordon records that it was timberless as late as 1832 [4])
• A gypsy moth infestation began on Nescopeck... -- this might probably be better explored in the Biology section? perhaps elaborate acres? damage costs? types of trees?
• Was Lehigh Valley RR a "gravity railroad"?
• Interesting fact not mentioned within: From 1832 to 1838 the Catawissa rail-road was graded at various sections of the line in Maine township. The gap between Nescopeck and Catawissa mountains was crossed by a network of trestling, constructed at an enormous cost. Then the work suddenly ceased. In 1853, nearly twenty years later, work was resumed and the road was completed. from J.H. Battle, History of Columbia and Montour Counties, Pennsylvania (1887), p. 293. Might be fruitful for expansion.

Biology

• ephemeral/fluctuating pool natural community - is there an article about this vis-à-vis vernal pools? I ask particularly to explain "ephemeral/fluctuating".
• Is there a reason a dwarf forest emerged there? As a wildland firefighter, a similar spot on Kittatinny Mountain (which juxtaposes dwarf forest with the only NJ aspen colony) is due to fire ecology (something I study)--especially with what wildfires do to soil nutrients.
  • Perhaps Mary Davis' Old Growth in the East (1993) at p. 41 might have something substantial to say
• No mentions of wildlife...endangered species? lepidoptera (it's on a migration route)? Birds? [5]

Recreation

• hunting? fishing (many websites list the mountain's streams as fishing locations), birdwatching? campgrounds? Is there access with ATVs or Horses to the trails? I recall the state park allows skiing on trails. agritourism? ecotourism? Cultural activities? I know there's a Blues Festival that is held at the foot of the mountain.
• maybe a little discussion on Nescopeck State Park (it also has 19 miles of trails), and its formation--why was the protected area seen as needed to be created? are there other protected areas?
• The line: There is high visibility from the top of the ridge and the town of Bloomsburg can be seen -- would be more meaningful if there is an indication of how far Bloomsburg is away to explain why this fact is important.

• I must say that I am not sure how to fix any of these, though there are many that I don't think need fixing (you seem to be confusing Nescopeck State Park with Nescopeck Mountain, for instance). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • To expand upon the above, I'm sorry to reject this feedback so abruptly when you have clearly put a lot of work into reviewing this. But I simply do not have the resources or expertise to make all of these changes. I incorporated all information that, to the best of my knowledge, is covered in reliable sources, so major expansion would be very difficult. Most of your comments about geography are far above my level. I will try to fix a few things, but I think that most of this either has been done (the height of the water gap is already sort of mentioned), or cannot be done (your references to wildlife concern Nescopeck State Park, not Nescopeck Mountain). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    • But you do mention the park in relation to the extent of the ridge, and if it's part of the mountain's area and ecosystem, therefore it goes without saying that some mention of the park's creation and purpose, its description would seem necessary. I'm not conflating the two...Appalachian mountain ridges have unique ecology, often endangered flowers, birds, butterflies, etc. The federal government's agencies, the state park system and Forestry office, Penn State, and organizations like The Nature Conservancy or the Sierra Club probably have such information for you and other inquirers (i work under NJ Parks and Forestry, have colleagues in NPS and US Fish and Wildlife and I work a lot with professors at Rutgers, so I know one email about any spot in my state of NJ will get me a list of resources and an informative conversation on them within a day or two...i encourage you to reach out to a few). For example: If you want to know about gypsy moths on the mountain, call your local forestry office, or agriculture extension service, or the county pest control officer, or Penn State (which has a big gypsy moth programme). The state likely has a report on any defoliation areas, impact/damage, pesticide applications, In NJ, one call to NJDEP would get me a copy of their reports. As far as the geological and geographical information, it is a mountain. For instance, Not discussing orogeny would be like writing a biography of a child actor with no mention of birth, parents, education, or youth up to age 16. You don't mention the composition of the strata (the three formations)...something that can be found on the bedrock geology map, can be found on USGS source files for each formation (they're public records, easily found online). As I see it, an article on a geologic feature like a mountain ought to be meaty on the geology information. Some basic information on the mountain's geology isn't mentioned...as i said above, the absence of it stands out. I couldn't begin to consider the major aspects criteria to be satisfied without the geology points I made above. And as I showed with a few links (above) that I found in the 90 minutes I spent with the article yesterday...there's more information from additional reliable sources out there that you haven't incorporated. If I could find a half dozen in a quick google search, you can too. JackTheVicar (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Jakec - Are you going to address or respond to the above comments? If you don't want to proceed with those suggestions, let me know and I could close out the GA1 as a fail. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Failing statement

Step Four of the GAN instructions states: You are expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article to GA quality in a timely manner. As the nominator has indicated that the requested improvements are above his level and made statements that improvement would be difficult, it is unlikely that the nominator will make an attempt to address my concerns. Further, since I initially posted my review on 11 October and templated the nominator on 13 October, there has been no effort at either the article or response to the suggested improvement here at the GA review--all while the nominator was working on other articles. I assume this as a purposeful or knowing avoidance of this GA review in the wake of his statement above.

While the article is well written, it is incomplete. For an article on a geologic feature (i.e. a mountain), from my opinion on the matter, the article ought to reflect accurate and complete geological information or data. This does not. Merely mentioning a formation without stating the rock materials that comprise the formation is insufficient. Additionally, there is no discussion of the mountain's orogeny which I think is essential as indicated above. There is minimal discussion of geographical features, history and scant information on ecology or ecosystems. I have directed the nominator where this information can be found. If the nominator decides to renominate this article at WP:GAN, I would advise him to seek out that information and improve the article accordingly. While I am not asking for FAC level comprehensiveness, failing to address the issues I raised above or improving the article with additional information as suggested above, I cannot in good conscience certify the requirement of criteria 3a—that the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic". Without this information, the article should be assessed at present as C-class.

Therefore, sadly, I must fail this article in accordance with the GAN criteria and instructions. JackTheVicar (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nescopeck Mountain/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 17:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• This image[6] doesn't seem to have correct date information on the Commons page.

@FunkMonk: Is this the only issue? 11/11/2013 was presumably the date I snipped the picture from Google Books; the book itself dates to 1883. I prefer not to edit Commons anymore, but if it's necessary for this to pass GA, I'll go in and change it. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It was just a preliminary comment to start on, will review the rest today. It isn't necessariy for passing, but it would be helpful for verification of the copyright. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

On second thoughts, the real date should be added to Commons in any circumstance. Also should be mentioned in the caption here, so we know it's an old diagram. FunkMonk (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I expanded the caption in the article; it's from an 1883 report, so definitely PD. Hopefully that's sufficient? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• I see te reviewer of the former nomination suggested some additional sources that could be used, have these been implemented in the meantime? Since this is "only" a GA, it does not have to be as comprehensive as a FA, but if specific sources have been suggested, they should be used. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Most of them are already in use or don't mention Nescopeck Mountain though. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure if this is common mountain jargon, but shouldn't "The elevation of Nescopeck Mountain is 1,594 feet (486 m) above sea level" be "Nescopeck Mountain is elevated 1,594 feet (486 m) above sea level,"?

• I've actually never heard it stated the second way, and the first sounds more natural to me.

• "Nescopeck Township is one township that Nescopeck Mountain goes through in Luzerne County.[6]" This is worded as if this is an arbitrarily chosen township among many?

• Reworded.

• "being described as "regular and almost unbroken" in an 1832 book." Why do you need to cite a book that old for a statement that simple? Unless it has changed in the meantime.

• It was the first/only source with that exact wording.

• "John Gosse Freeze's 1888 book A History of Columbia County, Pennsylvania: From the Earliest Times described the ridge as "beautiful and regular in its formation"." Why such an elaborate presentation of the book and author for this book and not the previous one?

• Fixed.

• "It is considerably steeper and higher on its northern side, at least in the United States Geological Survey quadrangle of Berwick." At least? Why the uncertainty?

• The source probably only deals with the Berwick quadrangle.

• There is quite a bit of overlinking.
• "A creek known as Nescopeck Creek" Should be linked at first mention, not down here. There are other cases here where articles are only linked at second mention.

• Linked Nescopeck Creek at first mention.

• "flows through this valley. This valley is" A bit repetitive to have "this valley" twice in a row.

• Changed to "the valley".

• "the peak of Nescopeck Mountain is on rock of the" Consists of rock?
• "During an ice age" Which ice age?

• I don't think it appears in the source, but I could be wrong.

• "of the most recent period of glaciation." Which was?

• Wisconsinan Glaciation, but it might by synthesis to say so unless the source also does.

• Any fossils known from the formations on the mountain?

• I looked on Google Books, but didn't see anything.

• I'd expect the etymology to appear much earlier in the History and etymology section, close to the first paragraph where the is already being discussed.

• Moved.

• "was devoid of trees in the middle" By the middle of the? Until?

• Changed to "by the middle of the".

• "The mountain is almost completely undeveloped." Which means what?

• Meaning that there is a lack of human development on the mountain. I don't think that's particularly unclear.

• "to begin spraying the area in May 2015 and June 2015." Long ago now, so I'm sure this can't be the last word on that?

• Sadly, no news since 2014.

• "An ephemeral/fluctuating pool natural community" Could be explained what this means.

• It's apparently a fancy term for a vernal pool. Linked.

• I'm sure other animals must live there than amphibians and invertebrates?

• Probably in the general area, but who knows if they live in the vernal pool system itself? Either way, it's unlikely the breed there and the source makes no mention of them at all.

• "A portion of the Pennsylvania State Game Lands Number 58 is on Nescopeck Mountain" I guess this means hunting occurs on the mountain? SHould be stated explicitly then.

• I think it's one of those things that's obvious enough from context, but can't be stated because there isn't a source explicitly saying so.

• What does the last paragraph of have to do with recreation? Seems it makes more sense with the other old quotes under Geography.

• I guess because it's describing how the mountain is attractive, which isn't really a geographical property. (And the recreation section is short anyway).

• "in Pennsylvania, in the United States" Only stated in intro.

• ???

I mean tit is not stated explicitly this is in Pennsylvania outside the intro, only in "circumstantial" ways (names of books, etc.), but no big deal. Few issues to go, changes look good. FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be repeated what state it's in. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Changes look good, there are still two unaddressed points. FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• @FunkMonk: I forgot to mention that I already removed a few links and changed the bit about the peak of Nescopeck Mountain. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok. This script[7] shows me there are quite a lot of duplicate links left. I'd recommend installing that. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Removed a few more, but I think the rest of the links are not unreasonable. Can this be passed now, or are there other concerns? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

There are three more, including vernal pool, but they will probably be fixed by others over time. So yes, I will pass this now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@FunkMonk, Jakec, and Nikkimaria: Why has this nomination passed, despite there being four book-length sources cited a total of six times with no page numbers indicated? Verifiability is a GA criterion and that policy says: "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Er, why ask me? I would say it shouldn't have passed, but I didn't have anything to do with it. I suggest you pursue GAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Because you tagged those missing page numbers on 3 January 2015. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, just went back and found that but you beat me to a revision. My answer's the same, though: GAR would be the best next step. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess didn't notice it because I've only seen in-text maintenance tags before, not tags only visible in the references. I didn't know this type of tag even existed, so I have simply overlooked them, since I did not know what to look for (also, small red text doesn't register well to me). But I'm sure the nominator can quickly add the page numbers, GAR is premature just minutes after it has passed when it should be an easy fix and has just been brought up on the talk page. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, in addition to those four sources, there are PDFs (up to almost 300 pages long) with no page numbers given. Furthermore, some sources cited multiple times on different pages are ill-formatted (White, 1883) and its impossible to tell which page an individual citation refers to. I hoped this had been a minor issue that could have been easily fixed by the nominator or reviewer, but it looks bigger than that. I await for these to be fixed, and failing that, will nominate this at GAR.

A reviewer should know what to look for, and I'd assume that it isn't possible to conduct a thorough review without also taking a look at the References section. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Mind you that this is not a FAC, the criteria are not as strict when it comes citation formatting, and the "mistakes to avoid" guideline[8] specifically mentions "Requiring page numbers where these are not essential." Whatever that means is probably debatable, but I take it to mean that page numbers are not as important at GAN as at FAC. Also: "Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. (If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.)" But of course, there should never be maintenance tags in a GA, which is what I regret not noticing. In any case, though I have reviewed many GANs, this is the first time I see tags like these that are hidden at the end of individual references. So I'll at least know what to look for now, but I think in-article maintenance tags are a much better option. Jakec should fix these issues as soon as possible, which I'm sure he will. But considering the guidelines I cited above, GAR would probably lead to those tags being removed as unnecessary for GA quality, rather than the article being delisted. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, you are right about one thing: those page needed tags should not be where they are right now (see documentation at Template:Page needed; they also break formatting in CS1 templates). Depending on the citation style, maintenance templates can however appear in the References section.

"Requiring page numbers where these are not essential" means that page numbers are only required when an inline citation is necessitated; the guideline alludes to WP:MINREF.

As for "Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations", my concern was not a formality. My problem was the citation White, 1883, which is not formatted according to any of the styles linked in the relevant section of MOS: WP:FNNR. There are correct ways to use either short or long citations without losing information about which page number is invoked whenever the citation is used. The way it's currently done in the article confuses these two styles by trying to avoid repeating the full bibliographical details, but failing to separate the citations based on the invoked page. One never knows which of the three pages are referred to. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see an example of how these tags are supposed to look? Also, I think those "mistakes to avoid" guidelines are so vaguely worded that they leave too much room for interpretation. Nothing there really indicates which of our interpretations are "correct". My interpretation takes them at "face value", whereas yours requires a few further steps beyond the actual text. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Although Google Books has a very nice feature that highlights all mentions of "Nescopeck Mountain" (which greatly aids in verification), I've added the page numbers for the remaining books as a formality. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Jakec. I've tagged the remaining citations that either don't give a page number, or give give multiple page numbers where the citation should be split. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It's really not all that difficult to check each individual page, since the page numbers are all given. The citation style used here is one that's gotten articles through GA and even FL with no problems before now. The information in the PDFs can be fairly easily verified by doing a search for "Nescopeck Mountain" (via cntrl+F). Again, this is not an FA, and articles don't have to be perfect, just decent. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

With the pages already given, I think this discussion about specific formatting is now beyond the scope of a GA review, and should be continued on the article talk page. FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nescopeck Mountain. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.topozone.com/states/pennsylvania.asp?county=Columbia&feature=Ridge

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)