Talk:West Creek (Pennsylvania)

West Creek (Pennsylvania) 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: March 6, 2015. (Reviewed version).

A fact from West Creek (Pennsylvania) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 May 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that there are nearly 900 macroinvertebrates per square meter in the lower reaches of West Creek?

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 Creek (Pennsylvania).

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.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 07:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to take on this review and will make a first reading shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

There are too many short or even single sentence paragraphs.

The majority have been fixed. --Jakob (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the prose is a bit "clunky". For example these two sentences could be combined, - "Shortly afterwards, it exits Sugarloaf Township.[3] Upon leaving Sugarloaf Township ..."

Better now? --Jakob (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could mention which side the tributaries flow in from.

Done. --Jakob (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the significance of the level of aluminium in the water?

High enough levels can cause fish kills. I've explained this. --Jakob (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph starting "In 1799" contains a large number of short sentences, some of which could be joined together for better flow of prose.

Wow, my old prose is really choppy. I've merged several of the sentences. --Jakob (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The bridge was moved to South Branch Roaring Creek when it was sold to H. H. Knoebel in 1936." - Was the bridge sold or the land sold?

The bridge was sold. Should be evident to the reader since the previous sentence is about the bridge being moved to another location. --Jakob (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Approximately 60% of the taxa are Ephemeroptera, 10% each are Plecoptera, and approximately 5% are Trichoptera." - You might like to add the common names for these taxa.

Done. --Jakob (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to explain what the Shannon Diversity Index and the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index are, and the significance of the figures.

I've given a rough explanation of both. --Jakob (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article and only contain information mentioned elsewhere. In the lead you mention the length of the creek but do not mention this in the body of the text.

The length such a basic fact that I think it's fine in the lead and doesn't need to be repeated. --Jakob (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could explain what "riparian buffering" means.

That's already done by means of a wikilink. --Jakob (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied with the alterations made. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose, grammar, structure and layout.
The article uses several reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
The article is neutral.
The article is stable, having been created by the nominator in May 2014 and having been edited by few other editors.
The single images is relevant and has a suitable caption. It was created by the nominator and is properly licensed.

Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]