Talk:West Branch Fishing Creek

A fact from West Branch Fishing Creek appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 May 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in September 1864, a thousand soldiers of the United States Army searched the valley of West Branch Fishing Creek for an alleged fortress manned by 500 armed deserters and draft evaders?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/West Branch Fishing Creek.

Wikipedia

West Branch Fishing 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: June 25, 2015. (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:West Branch Fishing Creek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rystheguy (talk · contribs) 09:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

The author of this article has clearly done a lot of hard work and research, and I would not hesitate to pass this nomination if a few minor things are cleaned up.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
No copyvios, spelling and grammar are fine, but minor rewording of the sentences outlined below would improve clarity. (This has been addressed)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: The issues raised below have been satisfactorily addressed. Looks good to go!
Pass/Fail:

@Jakec: Thanks for your hard work on this article. I've made a few minor changes so far, but there're just a few sentences that I think could be worded differently to make them clearer:

1. The concentration of dissolved aluminum in the creek is usually less than 40 milligrams per liter and is in some cases approximately 0 milligrams per liter.

It looks like the reference you used here is a graph, and it's difficult to tell from the graph if the concentration is actually 0. "Approximately 0" also sounds a bit awkward. Would it be accurate to say something like "...and in some cases has been measured to be nearly 0 milligrams per liter"?

I've changed "approximately" to "nearly" Better? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. The pH of West Branch Fishing Creek ranges from just over 5.0 to 6.7 or 6.8.

Same sort of thing here. The reference is a graph from what I can tell, so I'm assuming you're guessing as to whether the pH goes as high as 6.7 or 6.8? It also appears on the graph that the low-end is higher than 5.5. Perhaps saying something like "The pH of West Branch Fishing Creek ranges from just over 5.5 to just under 7.0." would be more accurate?

Good catch. I've changed 5.0 to 5.5. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. The valley of the creek is a gorge. It is one of the main features of the western part of Pennsylvania State Game Lands #13.

The first sentence is very short and doesn't seem to contribute much to the paragraph. Are you suggesting that it being a gorge is evidence of glaciation? And for the second sentence, does "it" refer to the gorge or to the river itself?

I've combined the sentences. Now really sure what else is the problem here. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. …built a railroad line from the Bloomsburg and Sullivan Railroad at Central several miles upstream, at Emmons.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Was the railroad line built starting from an existing railroad station (Bloomsburg and Sullivan Railroad) in Central that now terminates in Emmons? Would "…built a railroad line connecting the Bloomsburg and Sullivan Railroad in Central to Emmons.", or more simply, "…built a railroad line from the Central to Emmons." make sense? Or maybe using the word "extended" instead of "built"?

Reworded. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5. The Shannon Diversity Index of West Branch Fishing Creek is between 2.0 and 2.5 at Elk Grove. Further upstream, the Shannon Diversity Index of the creek is approximately 2.8. In the lower reaches of the creek, downstream of Painter Run, its Hilsenhoff Biotic Index is between 2.6 and 3.5. Between Shingle Mill Run and Painter Run, West Branch Fishing Creek's Hilsenhoff Biotic Index is between 1.6 and 2.5.

Since the wikilink to the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index is a redlink, perhaps a brief explanation of what those numbers indicate would be helpful?

I've been hoping that someone will come along and at least write a stub. Page 20 of this has a definition, though. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you've done an incredibly thorough job here, and I am looking forward to passing this nomination after these minor wording issues are cleared up.

Rystheguy (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rystheguy: Thanks for the review! I've responded to your comments. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakec: Thanks for making the changes, I've made a couple minor ones myself. It would still be helpful to add a brief definition of the Hilsenhoff Biotic index, but that's not a major problem. Good work! Rystheguy (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]