Talk:Toby Creek

Toby Creek 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: April 11, 2016. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Toby Creek appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 March 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that six bridges were built across Toby Creek in 1941 alone, and four were built in 1963?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Toby Creek.

Wikipedia

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.

Lacking in notability

Why is this considered notable? See WP:Notability It's a tiny creek in rural PA, and the article covers everything about it in massive detail. 98.249.198.22 (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it can be covered in massive detail based on multiple reliable sources indicates it warrants an article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Will get to this in a few days. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 10:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

~~Ensure that all the facts of the lead also find mention in the main text.~~

All of the facts that can be appropriately stated in the body are.

Thanks, I needed to ensure this. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 10:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend adding notes or brief explanations for terms like Migratory Fishery Coldwater Fishery, a Warmwater Fishery and a Trout Stocking Fishery.

Done.

It is said to show "some degraded conditions" By some specific authority?

By the reference.

not considered to be impaired Another note on "impaired waterbody" please.

See the Abrahams Creek GA review.

~~Pennsylvania Route 309 should be linked in the lead~~

Done.

~~I generally recommend linking in the lead as well as the main text; follow what you prefer, though.~~

There already are some?

I did not check it seriously, just a note. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 10:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrology

It has been described as showing "some degraded conditions" Please add the authority that puts it so.

It's the reference itself.

~~The "cubic feet/second" and "milli/mcrograms per liter" measurements need convert templates.~~

Done.

This value was historically somewhat higher Do you have any information on why this was so?

I don't.

~~What do you mean by "were once measured to be"? How old are these values?~~

No, it means that it was measured one time, as opposed to multiple times.

Geography, geology, and climate

"Mouth should have been linked at first mention, under "Course".

It's already linked in the infobox.

I prefer a link in the main text as well, when I say first mention I do not consider the infobox... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 13:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whyever not? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, we need not have the link if you don't wish to have it. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 12:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: So this can be passed now? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can gradient be linked?~~

Done.

~~"Pressure conduit" is a redlink as of now, can you add a note explaining it?~~

Linked.

~~The "million gallons per day" need convert templates.~~

How? I'm not sure conversion templates work on words.

I see, it would lead to fearsome figures. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 10:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Are "lake", "swamp", "pond", "reservoir", "flooding" not too common to be linked?~~

Removed one or two.

~~"cubic feet per second" measurements need to be converted~~

Done.

Biology

per 100 milliliters Convert

Non-metric units are pretty much never used for these kinds of things.

I am not adamant on this, but should we not have a template here for the sake of consistency with all those we have included earlier? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 10:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I guess. Just seems a little odd to me. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion may be weird but would cause no harm. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 12:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jakec: No more to say on this? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 12:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: It's already been done. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

found to be the poorest habitat For aquatic life? Mention clearly.

In general, I would assume.

poor epifaunal substrate, low instream cover What do these terms mean?

Eipfaunal is the only unusual word, and that's linked now.

The borough of Dallas has plans As of when?

Who knows. Probably they still do, which would make saying "as of" inappropriate.

~~Dupicate links: Pennsylvania Route 309, forested ("Watershed")~~

Removed forested, 309 should be okay since the other links are in different sections.

That should be all. A nice article! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 13:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakec: You there? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 13:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I believe this article is ready for promotion now. Great job! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 13:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]