Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)/archive2
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Featured article candidates/Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)/archive1
- Featured article candidates/Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)/archive2
- Featured article candidates/Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)/archive3
- Featured article candidates/Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)/archive4
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fishing Creek is a minor tributary of the Susquehanna River in Columbia County, Pennsylvania. It flows 30 miles from southern Sullivan County to Bloomsburg, and it's the main watershed in northern Columbia County. It's an interesting little stream, and an interesting article if you ask me. It's kind of obscure at first glance, but there's a wealth of information on it. That's my favorite kind of article to work on. And plenty of work has been done on it in the last 16 months. This article did fail FAC nine months ago, but many things have been fixed since then. There are now eight images instead of three, and USGS maps are used mostly instead of Google Maps for the course section. The reference formatting is somewhat better now and the lede and tributaries sections have been drastically improved. Some oppose rationales in the previous nominations are in my opinion not relevant, or information simply does not exist. Please bear this in mind. Also, it would be great for non-supporters to not come down too hard since I'm not an FA regular. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Geology image caption shouldn't end in period
- File:Stillwater,_Pennsylvania.PNG: use image creation not upload date
Also, while this was not the focus of my review, a glance through suggests that the article would benefit from a thorough copy-editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Period removed from geology image. I could not find a definite date for the Stillwater image, so I replaced it with an image that has a known date. --Jakob (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback from Curly Turkey
[edit]I have to agree with Nikkimaria that a thorough copyedit would be in order (maybe ask at WP:GOCE?). The lead, for instance, needs some more thought for organization, and perhaps the selection of information to summarize:
- "United States"; "canoeing, birdwatching, and fishing": is overlinking
- "The creek is situated "in the heart of the Appalachian Mountains".": Quotes require inline citation—but why is this cited in the first place, rather than rephrased entirely?
- "The creek's watershed contains gravel, shale and various loams (in particular, the Albrights soil series and the Leck Kill soil).": is this the best way to close the opening paragraph—is this likely amongst the first things a reader wants to know about the subject?
- In the second paragraph, we get the monotonous "Fishing Creek" beginning nearly every sentence.
- "Fishing Creek's average discharge is 615 cubic feet per second (17.4 m3/s).": jumps randomly into the middle of the paragraph, not strongly related to the preceding or succeeding sentences. Why not put it with the stats paragraph at the end?
- There are a lot of inline citations in the lead, which should be avoided as the lead is meant to be redundant to the body (where the citations belong), unless the claims are controversial
- Both the (short) third and fourth paragraphs deal with fish—why split them up?
———Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Curly Turkey I have fixed all of these (except keeping two citations in the lead to support an extraordinary claim, per the previous FAC). I've also placed a request at the GOCE. --Jakob (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, you're not supposed to have an article up at FAC or GAN while awaiting a copyedit. It'd probably be best to withdraw the article for now and re-nominate it when the copyedit's done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Curly Turkey: I will probably do that unless there are other reasons anyone thinks this shouldn't be an FA yet. --Jakob (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, you're not supposed to have an article up at FAC or GAN while awaiting a copyedit. It'd probably be best to withdraw the article for now and re-nominate it when the copyedit's done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Curly Turkey I have fixed all of these (except keeping two citations in the lead to support an extraordinary claim, per the previous FAC). I've also placed a request at the GOCE. --Jakob (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- This nom has been open almost six weeks without attracting any support for promotion so I'll be archiving shortly; it can be renominated after the requested copyedit and a minimum of two weeks has passed after archiving. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.