Talk:Spring Brook (Lackawanna River tributary)

A fact from Spring Brook (Lackawanna River tributary) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 May 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in 2006, some 60 percent of the 57-square-mile (148 km²) watershed of Spring Brook (pictured) was owned by one company?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/May.

Wikipedia

Spring Brook (Lackawanna River tributary) has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 7, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spring Brook (Lackawanna River)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Maile66 (talk · contribs) 18:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Checklinks tool shows dead links for; Citation 1 "Compehensive plan..." Dead since 2016-03-18; Citation 20 "Mosiac Flood Protection" Dead since 2016-06-15

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig's copyvio tool shows zero chance of violation with most citations, but an 18% chance on Citation 19 the river guide. What that tool picks up is not a copyvio, but a repetition of the common names and terms: Dup detector on that same source. Copyvio tools don't work well on PDF sourcing, of which there are many in this article. I did a spot check of those resources.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Only one image is used in the article, the Nebitt Reservoir, and is on Commons as Public Domain. Per Commons Freedom of panorama United States "In the USA, such works do not have a copyright and therefore may be photographed freely, whether or not from a public place."

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Jakec I think the article is fine. You need to take care of the two dead links mentioned above. — Maile (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: The links weren't on any of the archiving sites, so I found replacements. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And Ta! Da! Checklinks tool says all are now working. Everything else is good. This passes. — Maile (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]