Talk:Nescopeck Creek/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: EricEnfermero (talk · contribs) 21:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll be more than happy to take on the review of this submission. Thanks to the nominator for the great deal of work which has undoubtedly gone into this article. I will complete a thorough readthrough and leave specific feedback. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 21:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Good evening! As I noted before, hard work is evident in this submission. I'm just running into some problems with organization and referencing. Both of these issues may be related to the intricate detail present in this article. There are some syntax issues like duplicate words and wordy sentences, but those can easily be addressed once we work out these heavier referencing and structure issues.

Spot checks of references

I'm having trouble locating where some of the listed sources support the assertions in the article. Some examples:

• In several places, references to the Nescopeck Creek Watershed Stewardship Report (a large PDF) include page numbers, but more than thirty references to the document have no page numbers. This makes much of the article difficult to verify.

• Out of the 49 times the PDF is cited, 45 cites now use specific page numbers. ^King Jakob _C2 13:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

All of the "Stewardship Report" citations have page numbers now, but check to see that they're pointed to the right page. I corrected some that had been pointed to the wrong page.Folklore1 (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• In the lead, it says that portions of the creek have diffculty ratings of Class I to III, but I read the source as saying that each part of the creek has a rating somewhere from Class I to Class III.

•  Fixed ^King Jakob _C2 13:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• The last sentence in the lead seems to be sourced to a Google Maps main page URL. It shows me a picture of my home state, but nothing about Pennsylvania. I can't find where that sentence appears in the body though, so it might just be best taken out. Is it significant to say that there is only one community there other than townships (which I think of as communities)?

•  Removed ^King Jakob _C2 13:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• For the amount of information and detail in the body of the article, the lead doesn't summarize as much of the article's contents as I would expect. You might pay some attention to the order of information presented in the lead versus the order in the body. The Watershed, Biology, Hydrology and Geology sections are pretty large, but they are not well represented in the lead.

History

• Lehigh Path is sometimes written with both words capitalized and sometimes with "path" in lowercase.

•  Fixed ^King Jakob _C2 13:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• There is information about the 1700s in both the Prehistory and Recent history sections.

• I changed the section headings to "Native American inhabitation" and "European inhabitation". ^King Jakob _C2 13:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Geology

• "Another soil series in the Nescopeck Creek watershed is the..." - this phrase appears at the beginning of four consecutive paragraphs. With the general reader in mind, I think it would be better to have a short list of the soil types and then some explanation of the practical impact of those soils. Most of us won't know enough about soil to decipher why those types are good, bad or indifferent. That section is not meaningful in its current form.

• I cut a lot of soilcruft from that section. ^King Jakob _C2 13:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hydrology

• Similar issues as the Geology section. Lots of information on pH and toxic levels of metals, but I can't find any information about why that matters or what effects it would have on the creek. Acidity is mentioned as early as the third sentence in the lead, but there is no explanation of its practical effects. That seems like it could be a major aspect of the subject.

•  Partly done - Some of the toxicity information is placed in context. ^King Jakob _C2 13:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll place this nomination on hold for seven days while we work through the above issues. Will post more feedback (straightforward stuff) once we work out these bigger issues. Thanks! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 03:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I made a few tweaks; I think this passes now. I appreciate the additional context you provided for some of the detail. For GA purposes, I think there's at least enough context so that the details aren't as overwhelming. I trimmed down the soil info just a bit more and reorganized the lead a little bit, taking out most of the lead refs, as the lead shouldn't introduce new info. From here, you might work on the History section more. The timeline presented there doesn't flow too easily, but I think it's okay for GA status. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 03:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

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.	Tweaks made by nominator and reviewer during review.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead expanded by nominator.
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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Some intricate detail removed by nominator.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing. Good work!

Thanks for your work and for a good read! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 03:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)