Talk:Tangascootack Creek/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Peripitus (talk · contribs) 12:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC) This article has a significant number of issues that need addressing and I don't see that it meets the good article criteria at present, and there is a significant amount of work required. It is an interesting read about an interesting subject and I would love to see it back for review, after its had some more work. I've not covered all of the issues but have cherry picked examples to show where work is needed.
- Lead.
- The lead does not summarise the article. The text "(also known as Scootack[1] or Tangascootac Creek[2]" is unique to the lead. References [3] and [4] are also only in the lead. None of the hydrology section or the geology or biology sections are covered. In general references in the lead are a problem because the signify information that is not elsewhere in the article.
- Referencing:
- Google maps is referencing nothing as the text is covered by The Clean Water Act reference. [2] links to page 11 of the book but in the body the text comes from page 13. In this place also there is a misunderstanding about what the reference states. The article implies there is a fixed qty of coal, whereas the article makes it clear that this is a per-acre amount estimated from the average coal seam depth that the author has derived.
- References need formatting fixes, eg: Otzinachson is missing the publisher, year and ISBN. some references are missing accessdates.
- What makes "http://itouchmap.com" a reliable source for the elevation.
- Prose/writing
- Much of the text is not prose but is rather a set of disconnected sentences. Many of these sentences can be joined together in logical ways that read better. The text should be written as paragraphs following common and logical themes. Sentences should follow from each other and not be what reads as individual dot-points in places. The Biology and Hydrology sections read as a set of numbers loosely connected by words.
- is Tangascootack Creek has a major tributary called North Fork Tangascootack Creek. The watershed of North Fork "Tangascootack Creek has an area of slightly over 18 square miles. The creek also has a tributary named Muddy Run, as well as at least two unnamed tributaries
- better Tangascootack Creek has a major tributary, North Fork Tangascootack Creek, whose watershed is just over 18 square miles (47 km2), a minor tributary called Muddy run and at least two that are unnamed.
- is The watershed of Tangascootack Creek has an area of 36.5 square miles (95 km2). It is located in the southern part of Clinton County. Almost all of the land in the part of the watershed that is considered impaired by the Environmental Protection Agency is forested. However, in areas where strip mining was done in the past, there are patches of grassland or reforested land. Less than 1% of the land in the creek's watershed is residential during part of the year. This land includes sports camps and summer retreats
- better The creek's watershed covers 36.4 square miles (94 km2) in the southern part of Clinton County. A small amount of the watershed, less than 1%, has occasional residential uses, including sport camps and summer retreats. In formerly strip-mined areas there are patches of grassland and reforestation. Almost all of the area that is that is considered impaired by the Environmental Protection Agency, is forested
- 27,878,400 pounds (12,645,400 kg) of workable coat - absurdly precise figures and not supported by the linked reference - the data is from page 13 not 11. The ref states that this is per acre and only based on the average thickness estimated.
- is At one site on Tangascootack Creek (SFT-1, located not far from the creek's confluence with Muddy Run), the aluminum concentration is 1.12 milligrams per liter. This equates to a load of 23.8 pounds (10.8 kg) per day. The required total maximum daily load is 69% lower than this......69% or 69% lower ? Better to state a number. Words like "location not far" are better culled to "near". Total maximum daily load is not defined and forces the reader to leave the article to understand what you are writing about.
- better - A 2011 study found an aluminium concentration of 1.12 milligrams per liter at a site (SFT-1) near the confluence with Muddy Run. This equates to 23.8 pounds (10.8 kg) per day, far greater that the 6.4 pounds total maximum daily load that is allowed under United States water quality standards.
- Becks index, Hilsenhoff Biotic Index, Shannon Index are all redlinked. The numbers and indexes referred to in this section are unexplained and their relevance is unclear. Where are sites T-1, T-2 and T-3 ? "T-2 had a score of 179", is that on one of the mentioned indexes or some other scale. It states that 179 is suboptimal, so what is optimal ?
- Geography and Geology section. The subjects of the sentences go.... Minerals -> Elevation -> Coal -> Topography ->Rock and Soil formation -> Coal
- group similar things together in paragraphs. Elevation and Topography are similar. As are Minerals and Rock and Soil, as are the two sentences on coal.
- "Located" and "Also" are often unneeded. "located below" -> "below", "located in" -> "in", "there is also some aquatic life though" -> "there is some aquatic life". Look for surplus words - less is often better.
- Broadness
- Waterflow - how much and is the creek occasional, permanent or semi-permanent ?
- The history section covers the history of people interacting with the creek - I'd like to see the history of the creek. How old is it ? It the landform that causes the creek recent or ancient ?
- Peripitus (Talk) 12:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Some subsequent comments.
[edit]- Course
- reads ok
- Tributaries
- missing Bird Run. Which is mentioned in the previous section
- Hydrology
- I think that paragraphs 3 and 4 should be referenced to [6] not [7]
- Flow. How much volume of water flows down the river. May only be possible to write about if there is either a monitoring station or someone has made a scholarly estimate. Is the creek constant or is it dry for some of the year?
- Watershed
- the "A small amount of the watershed, less than 1%," bit is repeated
- what is the rainfall in the watershed ?
- Geography and Geology
- mention here where the creek is (county, state, country)
- the bit "down are also found in the rocks on the creek" makes no sense. I think you have joined two sentences together here
- 27,878,400 pounds….given the reference I'd change this to 28 million pounds as the reference just calculated this from some estimates. See my note above.
- History
- What was the history of the river prior to 1777 ? Is the landscape x million years old ?
- Biology
- need to mention that Total Taxa Richness refers to the qty of families of macroinvertibrates (I think) found at the sample site and the EPT Taxa Richness measures the number of some specific organism groups.
- Second paragraph should start with a conclusion on what the numbers mean (slightly impaired, very impaired etc) to give the following numbers context.