Talk:Spanish Hill/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jakec (talk · contribs) 02:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

I just finished reviewing this article. Congrats for your work on a Pennsylvania geographical feature! My review notes are below (fortunately it's a short list).

For criterion 1A:

• "Spanish Hill is a landform..." ought to read "Spanish Hill is a hill...".
• "...in the town of South Waverly, Pennsylvania" technically South Waverly is a borough; there's only one town in PA.
• The first and third occurrences of "twentieth-century" ought to be "twentieth century" or even "20th century" since their nouns, not adjectives.
• "Spanish Hill comprises approximately 10 acres (40,000 m2) of earth that rises approximately 230 feet" this could go either way, but I'm thinking it should read and rises.
  • I've addressed all of these. I really should have been more thoughtful regarding the town/borough issue! I live in Pennsylvania, but it's easy to forget the official terminology used.-RHM22 (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

For criterion 1B:

• The section describing the hill's geography should go above the history section. This isn't a policy or guideline; just a personal suggestion and the way I lay out my own hill/mountain articles; e.g. Nescopeck Mountain. Feel free to keep the original layout, just let me know so I can strike this comment.
  • That is a reasonable request, and I agree. I wrestled with that when I began the article.-RHM22 (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Done by me. --Jakob (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

For criterion 2A:

• Mostly good, but "As Twig wrote: “Until more information is known, it seems imprudent to eliminate Spanish Hill as a possible site related to the nation of Carantouan, as some researchers have done (Kent 1984:300-301, McCracken 1984).”[12]" has both a parenthetical citation and a regular WP-style citation.
  • This was added by another editor, so I'm not certain, but I believe the parenthetical citations were included as part of the quoted material. Nonetheless, they seem quite unnecessary, so I've just removed them. Please let me know if that is acceptable to you.-RHM22 (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Great, thanks. I don't think we need to copy citations when quoting someone. --Jakob (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

For criterion 2B:

• The elevation should be referenced. Come to think of it, it would probably be good to have in the body as well as the infobox.
  • Done. --Jakob (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• The GNIS (ref 1) doesn't say that the hill is in South Waverly, but the next reference (ref 2) does.
• Refs 14 and 20 are deadlinks. It seems unreliable (a personal site), though I could be wrong.
  • Well, one of them was just a scan of an old (1915) newspaper, so I wasn't concerned about it being a blog-type site. The other, I believe, contained some excerpts from academic papers, but the information isn't really necessary, so I've just removed that altogether. I will reinstate it if I can find the appropriate work which was cited on that website before.-RHM22 (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • OK, makes sense. You probably already know this, but archive.org is wonderful for repairing deadlinks. --Jakob (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I have replaced the citation entirely, to an academic paper (explained below).-RHM22 (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• "Occupying a site that was formerly home to portions of the Susquehannock people, the hill has been acknowledged and studied by historians and archaeologists for over two hundred years" - the source doesn't say that the hill was inhabited by the Susquehannock; it says that the Susquehanna River valley was. The Minderhout ref even says "there has been considerable debate over whether Spanish Hill was ever occupied by the Susquehannocks or other native peoples".
  • This one is a bit tricky. What I meant to convey here is that Spanish Hill is located in a region which was once occupied by Susquehannocks, not that the hill itself was a settlement. I've reworded it now. Do you think it looks all right?-RHM22 (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Looks good now. I also tweaked it in the lead. --Jakob (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Thank you!-RHM22 (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Refs 17 and 18 failed verification. Possibly the wrong page numbers? Or was I just not looking closely enough?
  • I've corrected ref 17 (now 16), but ref 18 (now 17) seems correct to me. The relevant information is in the third paragraph of page 59.-RHM22 (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Verification was successful. --Jakob (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

For criterion 3A:

• Seems a bit short. Some information on the wildlife/plantlife of the hill would improve the article.
  • Unfortunately, I don't think that I have any reliable and up-to-date information regarding the site's flora and fauna, as sources about Spanish Hill are pretty sparse. Do you know of any sources that might cover it?-RHM22 (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I would've thought that the Natural Areas Inventories might've said something, but apparently not. I can't seem to find anything else either. Oftentimes, they do have sections on some hills and mountains in a county, but apparently this isn't the case here. --Jakob (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Good enough. --Jakob (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Adding the USGS quadrangle that the hill is in (Sayre) would be a valuable little addition.
  • I added that, hopefully in the proper manner. Sorry for my ignorance here; I'm not a geography expert, but Spanish Hill has been an interest of mine, so I studied to be able to write the article properly. Nonetheless, I'm still unfamiliar with some aspects.-RHM22 (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

For criterion 6a:

• I won't hold the nomination back over this, but would a photo (or at least satellite imagery) be possible?
  • I tried to find a public domain image, but all I could source were very old, black and white photos that were not very useful. I'm not sure how to find PD satellite images, but one such image would certainly be a welcome addition. Do you know where I could find a free use satellite images? There should be some images which fall under the PD-USGov tag.-RHM22 (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Try going to http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/, navigating to Spanish Hill, and using a snipping tool or something to get a picture of the hill. --Jakob (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I did some digging, and I was able to find a nice-looking lithograph from 1881. What do you think of it?-RHM22 (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
        • It does look very nice. --Jakob (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

• Well-written
  • The prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
  • It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
• Verifiable and no original research
  • It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
  • It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
  • It contains no original research:
• Broad in its coverage
  • It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
  • It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail:
• Neutral
  • It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each:
• Stable
  • It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
• Images
  • Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
  • Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
• Overall
  • On hold Pass

• Thank you for your very thorough and thoughtful review, Jakec! I have attempted to address all of your points, and I hope that I have done so to your satisfaction. However, I have a few questions as well, which I have added above. Thank you again for your time and hard work.-RHM22 (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sure, no problem! I'm glad to review this. --Jakob (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Jakec: I've made a few fixes in reference to some of your above mentioned points. I also purchased a PDF of Twigg's report from the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology, which I have added to the article as a few inline citations. I will also add some more information, if I can find anything appropriate in it.-RHM22 (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Jakob: Well, I read through Twigg's paper for the SPA and I've added a few things (including the identity of the "French visitor"), but I wasn't able to find anything else to add, unfortunately.-RHM22 (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think it can be passed now. Great work! --Jakob (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, Jakob, for your thorough and thoughtful review. It really helped me to improve upon the article considerably. I will continue doing research, so that I can hopefully add something about the local wildlife.-RHM22 (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)