Talk:Shickshinny Creek/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 20:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll review this article. But before I do anything, we should be certain that all books have page ranges, hehe...FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. This time they do, I think I began using page numbers consistently shortly after I wrote the Nescopeck Mountain article. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tributary Could be linked.

Done.

"from the right." Why the easter-egg link? Right bank would be clearer.
"from the left" Likewise. If you spelled it out, I don't even think these links would be needed, seems unnecessary to make it so convoluted.

I honestly don't see how it would be clearer, and the Wiktionary links are there to explain that "left" and "right" are defined facing towards the creek's mouth.

I think in-article explanation is always clearer, especially when it comes to issues that may not be obvious to lay-readers. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But one of Wikipedia's great advantages is that wikilinks eliminate the need to break of the flow of text with lengthy explanations. If somebody doesn't know, it only takes five seconds to click the link and find out. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines say this though: "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so."[1] FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Right bank" is hardly a "highly technical" term, though. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Its watershedhas an area" Seems space is needed. You say "watershedhas" again in the following sentence, so I was unsure if it was somehow intentional...

Strange, a double typo. Fixed.

"to be 65 cubic feet" Could need conversion.
You have several measurements with milligrams, not sure if these should be covnerted to anything?
You also mention liters, which could perhaps be converted to gallons.
" 2500 cubic feet per second" Convert?
"eaching 4800 cubic feet", "reaching 6200 cubic feet per", "10,800 cubic feet" Likewise, and throughout the sections.
There are a bunch of duplicate links under "Geology and geography".

Mostly removed, though readers will be wondering what "fill" is if I remove that one.

You link "mouth" far below first occurrence.

Actually, it is linked in the infobox.

I mean in the article body. Links in the intro, captions and infoboxes are seperate. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Linked again. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

" In its first mile," Even this needs conversion.
"This may be the Mount Pleasant Formation." Why "may"?

Because the source expresses uncertainty, naturally.

Obviously, but my question is why is there uncertainty, and can this explained in the article? FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked, and it can't, unless some definitive answer can be gotten from this. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

" Wisconsinan Ice-Contact Stratified Drift" Seems that ice age could be linked, also, why the capitalisations?
Could also be explained in-text what "Wisconsinan" refers to.

Wisconsinan is linked to Wisconsinan Glaciation now. It's capitalized because that's it's name, not a description.

"The Watsontown Axis crosses" What is that?

As with many of these, the source does not mention.

"40 gallons" Convert.
"Coldwater Fishery and a Migratory Fishery". Could it be explained what these mean?

Added footnote.

"The word shickshinny in Shickshinny Creek's name means "quick dashing water"." In what language?

Not mentioned in source, though definitely Native American.

" area of 33.9 square miles" Needs conversion in intro.
"10.1 miles (16.3 km) long" Only seems to be mentioned in the intro and the infobox.

The numerical conversions have been done, though I'm not sure if the convert template works if numbers are spelled out (and it'd be awkward anyway).

I think that should be it? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, all that could be answered has been answered, so I will now pass. FunkMonk (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though, seems the note isn't showing up... FunkMonk (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]