Talk:Twomile Run/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Folklore1 (talk · contribs) 16:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I perform the review, I will update the following table. Please look below the table for my questions and comments. Folklore1 (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See notes below about corrections and improvements applied
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See notes below about corrections and improvements applied
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See notes below about corrections and improvements applied
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	short, but sufficient
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	appropriate details
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	consistently neutal
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	no recent edit wars
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	1 public domain image
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	relevant image, suitable caption
	7. Overall assessment.

Images

Comment: I just added an image. It's a satellite map from the USGS National Map. An actual photograph would be impractical (for me at least) since Twomile Run is over a hundred miles away from where I'm based. --Jakob (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Done Folklore1 (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

The second paragraph begins with "Twomile Run is the only stream..." However, I was unable to verify this sentence in the referenced source, and it doesn't quite agree with the text on page 2 of FINAL KETTLE CREEK WATERSHED TMDL. Please provide a specific page number for support or revise the text to agree with page 2. Folklore1 (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Done[reply]

@Folklore1: Apparently it's not even accurate (Fivemile Hollow also enters Kettle Creek from the east). I've removed it. --Jakob (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please include a specific page in the reference for Susquehanna River Basin Commission. This is a rather long document and I'm having trouble verifying "Most of the acid mine drainage...". Folklore1 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page 3. However, Kettle Creek is impaired by AMD near its confluence with the West Branch Susquehanna River. These impacts are mainly located within the Twomile Run Watershed and just upstream of its confluence with the mainstem of Kettle Creek. --Jakob (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed page number to match the numbering of the reference. The "Results" section begins with page 29 of the Commission's report and we're using information from the third page of that section, which is page 31. Folklore1 (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Done[reply]

In 2007, the average pH..." in the lead section suggests that this is significant. If so, the change in pH measured in 2011 should also be mentioned in the lead. Folklore1 (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Jakob (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Done[reply]

In the lead section, it would be more useful to state whether the manganese level of Twomile is high or low, leaving the specific measurements for the body of the article. Is it high? See page 165 of the referenced source. Bear in mind that most of us readers are not chemists and do not know what these numbers mean. Folklore1 (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source says that manganese concentrations above 1 ppm are rare in natural waters. I think that 1 ppm is equal to 1 milligram per liter when we're talking about water, so perhaps that could be added. Or would it stray too far into OR territory? --Jakob (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no federal standards for manganese in drinking water, but these levels are way over the EPA's secondary standard of 0.05 mg/l and over the level Connecticut considers unsafe (10 times the state's 0.5 mg/l Action Level). See "Manganese in Drinking Water" (PDF). Connecticut Department of Public Health.. Folklore1 (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only federal or Pennsylvania state government standards about manganese seem to be limited to drinking water, which would be wandering off-topic for stream water. So I'm considering this issue

Done. Folklore1 (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Course

"after some distance" is kind of vague. This could be corrected with an approximate distance, or by mentioning a specific landmark. Or you could delete that phrase and replace "and entering Noyes Township" with ", then enters Noyes Township." Folklore1 (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phrase removed. --Jakob (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Done[reply]

Using "Shortly after" and "shortly afterwards" in the same sentence is awkward. I suggest replacing one of these with something else to make the sentence a little smoother to read. Folklore1 (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Jakob (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Done[reply]

Tributaries

I've reorganized this section a bit make it a little easier to read. Folklore1 (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Done Folklore1 (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced map does not identify the unnamed tributary of Huling, but does it have a name that was simply not mentioned on the map? Is it significant enough to mention in the article? Folklore1 (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an official name, it would be on the map. --Jakob (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other source for this section reports that Huling Branch is about the same length as Twomile Run. Perhaps that should be stated in the article. Just saying Huling is significantly longer than the other tributary doesn't tell us much. Folklore1 (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Jakob (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Done[reply]

Hydrology

What is "site KC121"? This label needs an explanation. Folklore1 (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation added in the form of a note. --Jakob (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1 identifies the location, but I'm still curious about "site KC121". What does it mean? Folklore1 (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does it identify a sampling site or testing station at a specific location in the Kettle Creek watershed? Folklore1 (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If so, calling it "testing station KC121" or "sampling station KC121" would more clearly identify it. Folklore1 (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Folklore1: Done. --Jakob (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Done[reply]

References

The Twomile Run Watershed AMD Remediation Master Plan is an awfully long document. References identifying specific page numbers of the relevant sections would be a helpful improvement to the article. Folklore1 (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers would also be helpful with other long references. Folklore1 (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done --Jakob (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. This takes care of the more difficult to find items. Folklore1 (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

I'm putting this article on hold to allow time for improvements. Please let me know if more time is needed. The highlighted notes above identify priority items, which I consider necessary for GA status. Folklore1 (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not calling the un-highlighted notes necessary for GA status, that doesn't mean they are unimportant. The article is short, borderline in qualifying for GA. So it would probably be a good idea to address some of the minor stuff too during the hold period. Folklore1 (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At 2000 words, it's shorter than some of the articles I've nominated for GA, but I don't think it's that short, especially considering the obscure nature of the article. --Jakob (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Folklore1 (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]