Jump to content

Talk:Quehanna Wild Area/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

}}

Sources for FA push

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

  • Lots of Elk County elk in Benezette Township
    Lots of Elk County elk in Benezette Township
  • Bull male
    Bull male

Which one for the article? I prefer the antlered male photo - the elk cows look a bit too much like deer Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the big guy with the rack is impressive, but the females have young, Any way to use them both? The females are near the highway...or a highway. Do they really look like deer? I guesssss, if one hasn't seen a lot of deer. Might be interesting to get a pic of a white tail for comparison. The elk might look more like a mule deer, but the ears are too small. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • upon second look, the buck is a better picture. Clearer. Less over exposed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, there is always {{double image}}. The deer thing was a bit of a joke - whenever anybody shoots an elk in PA without a license it is either a farmer (dang thing was eatin' my crops) or else a hunter (Honest, I thought it was a deer!). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Reactor and two jet engine bunkers off the Quehanna Highway
1958 view of Piper (Boot Camp today) and Quehanna Highway

OK, here are two free aerial views of the Curtiss-Wright facilities in 1958 (using {{Double image}}). Left is the Quehanna Highway with the reactor at the end of the road at bottom left and two jet engine testing bunkers in white circles off roads at top right. Right is the Quehanna Highway and the industrial complex now known as Piper, Pennsylvania, home to the boot camp (the little road leads to its reservoir). I made them 220 pixels wide each as that is my default for thumb width. Would either work in the article? Maybe in Geology to show the plateau? I think these are fascinating, but realize not everyone shares my obsession with old blak and white aerial shots ;-) Feedback please, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

PS These could also be cropped some and labels in some bright color added (red?) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure a bright color would serve them, but perhaps a subdued dark blue, to set them apart. They would be useful, certainly, especially if you could addd something that gives a sense of scale, proportion or whatever, to the overall space. Re the deeer, elk thing, yes I guess I 'd heard that. I fish with a lot of hunters, and they have such nonsensical stories I don't pay much heed. Although I do know there are people who think the deer are fascinating. Rats with hooves. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I will see what I can do. I once saw a photo of an elk, a deer, and a rabbit all hung up side by side - the deer was about as big compared to the rabbit as the elk was compared to the deer. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinating efforts and discrepancies

I was planning to model this article on several of the Pennsylvania state park FAs I have been one of the main authors on (Dincher is taking a wikibreak). For examples of the two parks with FA articles closest to Quehanna please see Black Moshannon State Park and Cherry Springs State Park. Following that model, I was gpoing to start History with Native Americans, then the Lumber era, then a section on the CCC and state forests, then the Curtiss-Wright and other industires era, then the Wild Area and last industries, the cleanup efforts, Quehanna Trail, Tornado, Boot Camp, etc.

I noticed the following differences beyween my sources and what AuntieRuth55 has added so far.

  • In Geology (which I would put after History and leading in to Ecology) the map looks to me as if the High Plateau section is northwest of the Wild Area proper. Do you have a source for this? I was going to look at the Map 61 resources from DCNR too.
  • In Indigenous peoples, my sources say Chincklacamoose was a native village, but this makes it sound like it was a tribe or phratry. Cornplanter is a member of the Seneca nation but is of the post-contact era and I do not have sources that give him a strong connection to this area - since it is uncited, I cannot check the sources.
    • THis source says it was a Delaware village (Lenape). Not sure it adds anything to the article to mention that though. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I have details on a complicated combined sale of some land (around the reactor) and a 99 year lease on the rest, but the article says it was all sold.

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. The source old pamphlet I read (years ago) suggested that the Chincklamcamoose was possibly a subgroup of the Seneca (people of Chincklamacamoose). And I am happy for you to take the lead on this. Let me know what you need from me, if anything, and I'll be glad to do what I can. I think the tiny north western tip falls on the High plateau, but I'm not certain about that. I was basing that on a hiking map. Perhaps I can help toward the end with ce. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, how about I work on the model outlined above and ask here if there are other discrepancies and post here when I am done with a section - you could check your sources and see what you've got that I've missed. A copyedit would be great too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You might check the details on this: Underground Railway. I'm not sure that it went directly through the wild area. Might have. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks - I have looked at the maps in Wallace's Indian Paths of Pennsylvania and the path went south of Quehanna (followed the Great Shamokin Path west out of Clearfield). There was a Catawba Path that ran north-south (Brookville to Kane), but was located west of the wild area. If we mention the Sinnemahoning Path and Great Shamokin Path, it is about a far away and sould also be mentioned.
  • I like your work very much and assumed you would be a co-nom at FAC. Can you give an more specifics on the "NRC License 37-17860-02" reference? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Other sources

here is one source of info on the NRC license; renewal; and the general application, description of the site, and how it became contaminated is here. I had not yet filled out all the citation material, because I figured whoever would take this over would want to use the named templates, which I don't know how to use. I'll be happy to co-nom with you, if that's what you would like. Let me know when you need ce. Wallace is a good resource. I took a hike up in there in the 1960s, when my brother was in Scouts, so the Boy Scout material, which I don't have any more, but which I wrote about in my journal, was my source on the naming-- Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
A Sierra club source, conveniently online here. Nice descriptions, and some indication of the extent of the trail, at least, into the Plateau.
Case study (brief) of decommissioning here
boot camp assessment by PA if that doesn't work, try here Auntieruth55 (talk)
Thanks, I had seen the first three, but not the last three. I have a copy of the "Great Buffaloe Swamp" trail guide, which gives lots of history, especially of the lumber era. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Progress

I think the Native Americans section is done, as is the Geobox. Comments? Will work on the next section (settlers and lumber) now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Native American section is great. Something that has bothered me all along with our geoboxes is the "nearest city" line. Driftwood is far from being a city at just 103 folks. It's a problem that's in all the state park articles too. We need to come up with a definition for this line. Do we really want to go with nearest city? Some cities are not really "cities" compare, Williamsport or Dubois with Pittsburgh or Philadelphia. Then you have all the places in North Dakota. Egeland, North Dakota has 49 people and it's a city! So I changed it from city to settlement. What do you think? Or should we find the actual nearest city? Guessing, DuBois.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dincher (talk • contribs) 02:24, March 2, 2010
Clearfield? (well, hardly a city also but more than 103 people). A little further south in Happy Valley? State College? Lots of people there. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Clearfield and State College are both Boroughs. Semantics only, but not "cities". Dincher (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks, a lot of places mention Karthaus, but that is not incorporated, so I picked Driftwood, since it is a borough and I think the nearest one. I agree most people will not know Driftwood, and while Clearfield is also a borough, it has over 6,000 people. I like using settlement and Clearfield. State College is more well known, but a lot further away. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I like Clearfield, but Karthaus is definetly a settlement. Seems like we're stuck. Perhaps eliminate nearest whatever altogether. The location is fairly clear when we give township and county. Dincher (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no trouble taking it out. Probably a good idea to add relative positions compared to Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to the article too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Relative positions via Pittsburgh, Albany, Philly? Or at least some third city--to triangulate. I used to live in Meadville, and we always used the triangles.... Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The thought is that people who have no idea where Clearfield is have at least hopefully heard of Philly and Pittsburgh. Not sure Albany falls into the same category. The idea is to let people know it is between and north of those two cities (also in three creek FAs - Larrys Creek, White Deer Hole Creek and Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek)). If I had to add a third city - maybe Buffalo, or New York City? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

native section

Quehanna Wild Area is in the drainage basin of the West Branch Susquehanna River, the earliest recorded inhabitants of which were the Iroquoian-speaking Susquehannocks. This sentence is problematic. Initially it sounds like you've switched from the natives to the geology. How about Iroquoian-speaking Susquehannocks, the earliest recorded settlements of the Quehanna Wild Area's, lived in ... Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the problem is I do not have a reference that specifically says that Susquehannocks lived in Quehanna (which your suggestion seems to say), but I do have refs that say they lived in the Susquehanna River basin and that Quehanna is there. Let me think this over. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I tweaked it along the lines of your suggestion - hopefully it is better now? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Map

OK, after a lot of work, here is a base map (no labels). The color scheme: ivory is Quehanna Wild Area, green is Moshannon State Forest and Elk State Forest, yellow is Pennsylvania State Game Land, light green is State Forest Natural Areas, red is the restricted zone around the former nuclear reactor, and brown is private land. I was going to label the 3 counties, 5 townships, 2 natural areas, Quehanna Highway, Wykoff Run Road, Reactor Road, Restricted zone, Piper and the boot camp, and the bit of the Sinnemahoning that can be seen at top right. Anything else? I was probably also going to add a color key in the bottom left corner. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Here it is labeled. The no labels version is here, decided the color key was a bit much to add to it. Also did not label Reactor Road as not a lot of sapce there. Feedback welcome, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice map. Very interesting shapes. Dincher (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I like it. The blue areas...they are lakes in the run off areas? The green is a bit virulent (too chartreuse). Is it possible to blue it a bit (or red, at least reduce the yellow in it). Nice job. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - I changed the state forest green to a less bright shade and made made the natural areas the more chartruese color of green (they were not lakes, but I can see the confusion - thanks for pointing it out). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Much better now. The large area of the bright green was over powering. This makes the wild area more of the focal point! Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Need a reliable source

So this website has something about the reason for the 16-sided polygon that I have not been able to find elsewhere. "At the center of the 16 sided polygon is the exact location where they strapped down jet engines and let them run for hours, and on occasion, days. The military calculated that if one 'got away' it wouldn't escape the area within the fence. In theory, it is a circular area. But even the military didn't want to erect a circular fence: that was better engineered as a series of straight lines. They built a 16-sided polygon fence."

Now parts of this I have confirmation on from WP:Reliable sources. The jet test bunker being at the exact center of a 16-sided polygon (actually the north bunker, there is also a south bunker about 0.5 miles away). There was also a central area (what Curtiss-Wright bought, not leased) which was octagonal in shape and surrounds the bunkers (and I think includes the reactor) - see this map - which they hand built a three-wire fence around and put guard houses on the three road access points (assume both ends of Quehanna Highway and Wykoff Run Road). I also know they cleared out over a hundred camps on land leased within the larger 16-sided polygon, which is consistent with avoiding jet engines.

Except for this, I have no sources for: a fence around the larger 16-sided polygon, the shape and size being chosen to keep a runaway jet engine inside, and making a 16-sided polygon versus a circle. These all seem plausible or even reasonable, but can't be included without a better source. I have no sources on military involvement, other than government contracts at Quehanna - in fact, there is more on it being a private nuclear reactor, not a government or military reactor / reservation.

So can anyone else find a reliable source for this? I will also keep looking (and still am waiting for some sources to come in). Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, this was originally a newspaper column published in the Centre Daily Times - I read it a while ago, then just found it again searching for Quehanna and polygon and fence, and did not reread the top. Sorry, and glad this is from a WP:RS Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

edits

The paragraph that begins w/ the French and Indian War. As an result of the war, and the treaties that followed it, many Natives moved further west? Is that right? There were a number of reasons, but the primary one was not the war per se, but the arrival in the region of greater numbers of Euro-American farmers, who divided up the land in ways with which the Natives were unfamiliar, and eventually pushed them out? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out - I was trying to be succinct, but was evidently too successful ;-) . Another factor at play was the removal of the French as a power in the west, allowing the colonists to move westward and push the natives ahead of them. I can think of two ways to try and make it clearer, which do you prefer? Or do you have a suggestion?
The French and Indian War (1754–1763) and colonial expansion following it led to the migration of many Native Americans westward to the Ohio River basin.[4] OR
After the French and Indian War (1754–1763), many Native Americans migrated westward to the Ohio River basin.[4]
I am pretty much done with the first three sections in History, so please feel free to point out any other rough spots. I am not sure about including the Underground Railroad - I included the Great Shamokin Path because of Chinklacamoose and Chingleclamouche Township and Clearfield. The only reference to an escaped slave I can find in connection with Quehanna itslef is Jerry Run (NE part), which is named for an escaped slave who settled on it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I tried the first variant, is it better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Organization

I just now tried putting dates into the History section headers. I am not sure if this works or not. There is some imprecision in dates - for example, the Lumber era section starts in 1784 according to the header (when the land was purchased from the Iroquois and when the previous Native Americans section ended), but then starts with Wm. Penn arriving in 1682. I also have lumber end at 1900, as the following State forests section starts then, but that section describes lumber companies cutting the Quehanna until 1912. Establishment is the period when Curtiss-Wright owned at least part of the land (1955 to 1967), but I wonder if this would be better as "Curtiss-Wright, Penn State, and Martin-Marietta" or even something like "Research complex".

I also wonder about calling the last section (currently "Wild Area and reclamation (1967–present)" something like "Modern era" and then having at least three subsections: one on the nuclear complex and its cleanup, one on the industrial complex at Piper including the Boot camp, and one on the Wild area itself, including the Quehanna Trail and probably the tornado.

Then there would be sections after this on Geology and Ecology, and perhaps Recreation (hiking, fishing, hunting, natural areas). I can see Recreation being covered in the Modern era (trail, natural areas) and Ecology (hunt/fish).

What do you think? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

it looks better if the headers have imprecise dates, I think -- for example, pre-European contact, or 18th century, or something like that. I like "Modern" era, although for historians, that is also waaaay to imprecise -- that would include 19th and 20gth century. Perhaps just centuries works better-- Do you have a second source on the boot camp, other than that report?

It's looking VERY good. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the section called establishment would be better labeled as "contamination" or some such thing. Or even labeling it "Atoms for Peace" would be cool, too. Here are 2 sources on Strontium and here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
and here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec x2) Thanks for the kind words. I like "Atoms for Peace" very much. I really don't like the names and dates in the headers - I like short headers if possible, so how about Native Americans, Lumber, State forests, Atoms for Peace, and something else - maybe just "1967 to present"? or "Wilderness and cleanup" or "Wilderness and reclamation"? I have Sayers' book finally and it and Seeley's book both have more on the Boot camp. The last ref on Sr-90 is excellent. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Geology will also have climate information, so what about putting most of the tornado material there? Mention it in the History to establish the date, but put the details in Climate. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure. We just had an edit conflict so I'll stop ce for now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll do a ce on Atoms for Peace later. I was almost done when our edit conflict kicked in. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about the ec - I am done with Atoms for peace and the preceding history sections, will work on Wild Area next. I moved the other stuff around per the organization idea here, including the coyote hunt. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

coyote hunt

I think remove it entirely from Beaver dams section, and put in recreation, with trails too. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I moved it as you suggested, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Geology

I removed the Pittsburgh Low High Plateau section from Geology - looking closely at File:Map13.jpg, it is some disatnce northwest of Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek and Quehanna Wild area is all southeast of the creek. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Sorry, it was the High Plateau section that I removed. I also took out the glaciation per this map - will probably add a bit about no glaciers back in. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Checklist

Some things that will need refs before FAC:

  • Lead - ...it contains protected forest acreage in an area three times the surface area of Manhattan. this needs a ref and is not repeated elsewhere in the article. Per WP:LEAD the lead should be a summary of the whole article and not contain anything no repeated elsewhere.
    • I'll see if I can find the citation. I had it last week. Same below. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Same problem in the lead for It is one of the few areas in North America with acres—over 900 acres—of White Birch. (also needs a convert template, but I can fix that myself

Here is a checklist of what still needs to be done (pictures will be added before April 1):

  • Lead - save this for last to make sure it is a summary of the whole thing
  • History, Native Americans - done as far as I know
  • History, Lumber era - done as far as I know
  • History, State forests - plan to get a picture of Kunes Camp built in the early 1900s
  • History, Atoms for Peace - plan to add images of the reactor and hot cells, hopefully they will be released under a free license, if not then fair-use
    • I did ce on this yesterday. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, I saw, thanks. I am working on expanding the next section now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • History, Wild area and reclamation - plan to make three [four] subsections, one on the reactor cleanup, one on the the jet test bunkers and the fatal explosion there and waste elsewhere, one on the Piper industrial complex and its tenants over the years including the boot camp, and one on the wild area itself and two natural areas, etc. Add a picture of the cleanup robot - free or fair use, also plan to get pictures of the boot camp, test cell bunker ruin, outside of the reactor if possible, aerial shot of the complex, some others
  • Geology and climate - done I think
    • Tornado zone - have not copyedited it, will try to get a photo of the zone
  • Ecology - needs to be expanded, use Elk photo(s), should not be a problem
  • Recreation - needs to be exanded, should not be a problem

Also need to

  • Add alt text for the images
  • At the very end go through and combine identical references and put them into numerical order

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

sources:

  • Source: Purple Lizard. Quehanna. October 2002. Accessed 14 March 2010. He places it in Marion Brooks Natuarl area ( text: “My favorite is Marion Brooks Natural Area. A parking lot and stone monument mark this unique forest which contains 975 acres of white birch and little else. To wander through a pure stand of white birch at the peak of fall colors is truly amazing. From the parking area, there is no defined trail through the birch; one simply meanders through the forest. It's a very unique experience because all you can see is a solid forest of white bark. There is very little undergrowth among the birch trees. It's easy to become disoriented here. I advise taking a compass and not going too deep unless you are experienced at orienteering.” )
  • Source: White Birch. Text: (“An extensive area of 80-100 year old mixed oak forests, which have been set aside to maintain the undeveloped character of the forest environment. During a tornado in 1981 an area of the forest was disrupted creating a shrub/scrub habitat which supports the Prairie Warbler and Indigo Bunting. There are openings made in the forest for elk grazing. Explore the area by backpacking the Quehanna Trail or by taking a leisurely stroll through the Marion Brooks Natural Area, where large stands of white birch can be appreciated. By vehicle, the area can be viewed by driving the Quehanna Highway from Medix Run to Karthaus, and also Wykoff Run Road. Drive with caution, deer are attracted to lush vegetation along roadsides and are unpredictable. Birds include breeding Cerulean, Prairie, Pine, and Black-throated Blue Warblers, Rose-breasted Grosbeak, Indigo Bunting, Hermit Thrush, Whip-poor-will and Wild Turkey. Conifer species like Magnolia Warbler, Yellow-rumped Warbler and Purple Finch are found at lower elevations than usual. Wildlife includes black bear, bobcat, elk, timber rattlesnake and possibly fisher. Goshawks, PA's largest acciptiter, can be seen year-round.” )
  • Source: Sierra Club (Pennsylvania), Quehanna contains a description of the park.
  • Source: [1] description of hiking in the park, including the sighting of UFOs. Interesting.
  • Info on White Birch (this source places the big stand in Marion brooks, not in Quehanna). White birch This source here also places the White Birch at Marion Brooks Wilderness, not Quehanna. This source shows the White Birch are in Quehanna (or at least partially). It also has pictures of earlier tornados (in 1963), but at St. Mary’s, which is only “near” Quehanna. And lots of other pictures….
  • 100 mile Yard sale: here Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, first off Quehanna Wild Area contains two state forest natrual areas: Marion Brooks and Wykoff Run. The natural areas have higher levels of protection (no logging at all, for one) than do the wild areas - see here. So there are birches throughout Quehanna and the largest of those stands is in Marion Brooks.
    • The problem is that none of the sources you link to say explicitly what the sentence in the lead does: It is one of the few areas in North America with over 900 acres (364 ha) of White Birch. The 100 mile yard sale come closest: "..stop at the Marion Brooks Monument and see the largest acreage of white birch trees in the east." and the DCNR page on Marion Brooks says "This natural area is best known for its immense stand of birches, the largest in Pennsylvania." I can see saying it is the largest in the state and/or in the eastern US, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Go with what you feel is most documentable. I think it would be good to clarify the difference between a natural area and a wild area. So it is arguable among the largest stands of white birch in the east, and possibly in North America, although this is not specifically documented. There are many varieties of the white birch, and the white paper birch is prolific here, too. And since you've included a picture of the white birch in the article info box, we probably need something on it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I will go with largest in the state and one of the largest in the eastern US and use the DCNR and yard sale refs. This will be in the Wild Area subsection of History, which will also clarify the differences between a Pennsylvania state forest wild area and natural area. I have a fair amount of material on waste dumps in the wild area and their cleanups. My original plan was to put them into the wild area subsection, but I wonder if they would work better thematically with the reactor section (so that would be something like reactor and cleanup). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the latter. I've added some text below on white birches, you can select what you want from it, or I'll clean it up and you can use the whole thing. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I was leaning that way - glad you agree. I had seen the white birch material and will use some of it in the article - thanks again for getting all of it - probably could use more in the Marion Brooks Natural Area article. I fear that one of the potential problems with the article is too long; didn't read syndrome, so I am trying to be concise. I have asked Niagara to look at the tornado section and will work on the reactor and waste section next. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Date founded question - 1965 or 1967?

Thorpe's history of the Pennsylvania state forest system and Sayers book on the Quehanna Wild Area both say that it was established in 1965. The infobox says this too, as does the Atoms for Peace section. This was done by the state legislature on the land which had been leased to Curtiss-Wright and then reverted back to the state. In 1967 the core area was repurchased from C-W and the whole area was declared a wilderness area. According to Sayers, the name "Quehanna Wild Area" first became official in 1970 (need to add this to the article). What are the sources for this edit? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

  • see text at the end of Atoms for Peace section. I'm trying to make the dates agree. It's one or the other? By November 1967 all of the land was back in the state forests and state game lands, and Maurice K. Goddard, secretary of the Department of Forests and Waters, declared all of it a wilderness area for day-use only.[65][50][66] Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I reread my sources and my notes conflated some details, so I rewrote it. I am going with Thorpe and Sayers on the 1965 date. The land purchased back in 1967 was added to the wilderness area already established in 1965. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking good

I've done a light ce on the geology and climate section. I don't know how to do the named refs, so you'll have to do that with the Carpenter reference, and the NEC material. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have not copyedited the Tornado section yet - part of the problem is that am not sure if it the second paragraph goes into a bit too much detail. I think I may ask Niagara who knows a lot about meteorology to look at it. Also have two details to add to tornados - the reactor building suffered $200,000 in damages (but no radioactivity was released) and about $2 million in lumber was salvaged in Moshannon State Forest after. I think I will add those and do a light c/e, then ask Niagara to take a look (he wrote the Kinzua Bridge article about another tornado). Will fix the refs as I go through the remaining sections. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Birch

Paper birch, or Betula alba var. papyrifera, is a large tree usually reaching a height of 50-75 feet, with a diameter of 1-23 inches, but it may reach a height of 80 feet with a diameter of 8 feet. (Joseph Illick, ‘’Pennsylvania trees. “White Birch”. Pennsylvania Department of Forests. Harrisburg: Wm Stanley Ray, 1914, p. 114.) Generally shade-intolerant,(Charles Fergus, Trees of Pennsylvania and the Northeast, Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, ISBN 08117209262002, p. 92.) when grown in the open, trunks are usually short and thick; lateral, often ascending branches cover the trunk from the base. When grown in close stands, most of the trunk is branch-less base and bears a narrow open head. The bark of the trunk and older branches is chalky to creamy white, and peels in layers that are tinged in yellow and covered with horizontally-elongated lenticels. On older trunks, the bark is often rough and fissured with irregular thick scales. The twigs are stout, viscid, with first greenish hairy covering that later becomes smooth and reddish brown in color. After several years, branches turn a bright white, like the trunk, and are covered with pale, horizontally-elongated and orange-colored lenticels. The buds may be ovate, sharp-pointed, and divergent, about ½ of an inch long, dark, almost chestnut brown in color, and covered with a few overlapping bud scales. These usually have downy margins. The leaves alternate, with simple ovate, 2-3 inches long, and 1 ½ to 2 inches wide They are firm in texture, the upper surface being dark green and the under surface light green. They are narrowed or rounded at the base, sharply toothed on the margin, and have a sharp-pointed apex. Flowers appear in late April or May, before the leaves. The staminate are arranged in layers which occur in groups of 2-3 and are about 1/10 to .15 inches long. They become longer, 3 ½ to 4 inches, in the spring. The pistillate have light green lanceolate scales and red styles, and appear in clusters 1-1/12 inches long. The fruit is cylindrical, with a short-stalked strophile about 1.5 inches long. The scales are long, with thick, lateral lobes, and a long terminal lobe. Seeds and small and winged, and the wings are wider than the nut. The wood, a hardwood, is diffuse, porous, rays are small and inconspicuous. The wood itself is light in color, usually light brown, tinged with red, and with thick light sap wood, and its weight is 37.11 lbs per cubic foot. It is strong wood, once used extensively in the manufacture of spools, shoe lasts, pegs, fuel, and in the manufacture of paper pulp,(Illick,p. 114), but also in by Native Americans in the construction of horns, canoes, snowshoe frames, and as coverings for the long house. In canoes, the bark that touched the wood was the side that touched the river, and the resulting canoe could be very strong, useful in rapids or in ocean travel. Native Americans also boiled the sap of paper birch to make a syrup.(Fergus, p. 92). The Paper birch is also known as canoe birch and white birch, but should not be confused with the European white birch, another deciduous tree that grows in thickets along roadsides, pastures and waste ground.(Ann Fowler Rhoads. The vascular flora of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia:American Philosophical Society, 1993. ISBN 0871692074, p. 76.)

Although its range extends from Newfoundland to Alaska, and as far south as Michigan, Colorado and Washington, it is only found in the northern part of Pennsylvania, and in scattered instances in Tioga and adjoining counties. Its habitat is usually wooded sloops with rich soils, such as that found on the borders of lakes, swamps, and streams. The white birch occasionally appears in coniferous forests, and makes scattered appearances among other hardwoods. (Joseph Illick, Pensylvania trees. “White Birch”. Pennsylvania Department of Forests. Harrisburg: Wm Stanley Ray, 1914, p. 114.)

Birch, beaver, deer

Added some on birch, beaver and deer, plus sources in text. don't know how to do the meta cite, so will leave that to you. have to get back to RL for a few hours. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I have not yet had a chance to read it close - very busy in real life, but OK now. My thought on protected area articles is to include material as relavant to the site itself as possible - so the beaver dams being blown up in the 1940s in Quehanna, or the fact that the Quehanna Trail passes active beaver dams is to me better than general information on beavers. The other thing I worry about is article size and WP:WEIGHT issues - Marion Brooks is about 2% of the Queahnna Wild Area by acreage, so I think the birch material might be a bit too much for this article, though I think it would be better in the Marion Brooks Natural Area article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps pare down the birch size. It's up to you. I'll ce some more tomorrow, but this needs to get to the guys at FAC, who are in an uproar rightnow over some banned user trying to get his article through. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I have a large block of time tomorrow and think I can finish it then. I should be able to obtain some more pictures by Thursday. Niagara has asked some questions on the tornado section which I will copy below. Do you like to do alt text? I am slow at it (no surprise there, as I am slow at everything). Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Niagara's comments from my talk page: A couple of thoughts after reading it:

  • Albion, Pennsylvania was the site of the F4 tornado, not Albion, Ohio
  • What areas were the tornado watch and the tornado warning issued for?
  • You may want to put in what the approximate size of a tennis ball is, as it is not a standard unit of measure and probably not universally understood.
  • I'd mention why "the inversion" moving is significant.

- copied from my talk page, comments by Niagara. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

should be good now. I expanded, explained, clarified. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I forgot to check the alt text, but will do so tomorrow. Will also copy edit the sections you're working on tonight tomorrow afternoon (EST). Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I plan to finish the Ecology and Recreation sections in the next 24 hours, calling it a night. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
No UTC. I'm back. do you want me to go through it? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
UTC. I should have specified. Do you want me to read it through once more? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Piecemeal peer review

Here is a section for comments on the parts that are complete. As of 04:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC) that includes all the five sections of History and the Geology and Climate section. Any comments would be great. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Updates

I made a start article for Marion Brooks Natural Area and think the White Birch section would be a better fit there. I do not want to paste it there as Auntieruth55 wrote it and should get the GFDL credit for it.

I heard from the Bureau of Radiation Protection and the building is gone and the license done as of 2009 (added this). They are checking on releasing some photos under a free license. I should have some more photos of the wild area by this time tomorrow, at which point I think we can go to FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I still think this article needs something on the white birch, if only because you've used the picture in the info box. I have more info on the white birch that is not included in the paragraph that's in the article, but i pared that one down considerably. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Let me upload the pictures I got and try and finish adding the material I have researched for the rest of Ecology and Recreation, then I will take a look at how the birch material fits in and let you know what I think. IAdded some pictures already, need to take a break. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I put most of the birch stuff in the Marion Brooks article. but this one I still think needs at least a mention of it, espec its uses and its links to the Native Americans. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

you've done a marvelous job. I'll proofread tomorrow if you'd like, or you can go ahead and submit it. Whatever you'd like. I've got to work in the a.m. so won't get to it until late afternoon. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I still need to reread the article, tweak the lead, and combine identical references. I also want to carefully read the birch and beaver sections and comment on them - will you be active here for much longer? I also have a bunch more images, had thought about adding one of Wykoff Run to the Geology section and perhaps one of Hoover Farm Wildlife viewing area to the tornado section (open area). Thanks for all your help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, I have cleaned up the duplicate refs (I think I got them all), but still need to copyedit the lead. The article is 103 kb and readable prose is around 60 kb, so it needs to be trimmed a bit. I was going to remove the first paragraph of Native Americans (start with the Susquehannocks instead). I also want to remove the Wetlands section and pare down the White Birches section and combine the information with existing section(s). The Wetlands and White Birches have a lot of material that is wither not Pennsylvania specific or contradicts what is in sources specifically on Quehanna. For example the Marion Brooks Natural Area (MBNA) birches are both grey and white, but the section is all on white. The MBNA birches are on poor plateau soil and 30-40 feet tall[2], the section now says they are usually on rich sloping soils and 50-75 feet tall. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
don't worry about the length. It works. It's a guideline, not a requirement, and lots of articles have been longer than 103 and still been not only readable but fascinating. Yes, pare down the WB section by combining with existing sections. The Gray birch is another type.
Thanks, I pared down the WB and made it a paragraph in Flora, axed the wetland and first Natives sections and the Catawba Path sentence - trying to keep the focus on Quehanna. I am working on the lead and then will be reasy for FAC if you are. I think all else is done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think it looks good. There are probably some prose glitches, but we'll find them during the review. The size of Manhattan is 23 sq. mi, according to Manhattan, and that is sourced to the US Census. Brooklyn is 73 sq. mi. But lots of people are familiar with Manhattan's size. Trying to provide a point of comparison. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I added the Manhattan comparison to the Wild Area section with the Census ref. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

corrections needed

  • the first sentence about Martin Marietta has some weird grammar/punctuation problem. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't understand this sentence: When Curtiss-Wright vacated 212 camp leases in state forests in 1955, Quehanna was considered "some of the best hunting land in the state
    • Will work on it next, thanks. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Changed it to Before Curtiss-Wright took over the area in 1955, Quehanna was considered "some of the best hunting land in the state". (Stranahan quote) Better? Will work on the others next. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • in Lead: It is one of the few areas in North America with over expansive acreage—900 acres (364 ha)—of White Birch. It is one of the few areas in North American with extensive stands of White Birch. (the numbers are wrong). What makes it remarkable also, is how far south it is. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I will work on the lead now. Looked a few obvious places for a good ref for the whole Allegheny Plateau climate like that much further north, but did not find it. Will post here and remove the in use when I am done with the lead. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • After this, the lands of the West Branch Susquehanna River valley were under the nominal control of the Iroquois. ~ The Iroquois exercised nominal control of the lands of the West Branch Susquehanna River valley.
  • The Sinnemahoning Path along Sinnemahoning Creek ran north of Quehanna, and as the path with the gentlest grade, may have been the route the first Paleo-Indians took entering this part of Pennsylvania from the west. ~ The Sinnemahoning Path along Sinnemahoning Creek ran north of Quehanna; as the path with the gentlest grade, it may have been the route the first Paleo-Indians took entering this part of Pennsylvania from the west.
  • If you want, give me an hour, and I'll go through it again. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • OK< let me work on the lead - should take me less than an hour and I will post here when I am done. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
take your time. I have to go out now until about 2300. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I am done for now - need to run an errand myself, OK if I submit to FAC before 2300 (EST?)? Ruhrfisch ><>°°
I am really done now - the fourth paragraph of the lead is a bit rough / sparse - forgot the Plateau and tornado initially. If it is 2300 UTC I am fine with waiting. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

All refs are now in numerical order. I may nominate this at FAC in the next half hour, assume now 2300 was EST, not UTC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No UTC. I'm back now, do you want me to read it through once more?
Yes please - I fixed the dabs and tweaked the lead and put the refs in numerical order. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
There needs to be something in the first or second sentence alluding to the radioactive contamination etc, to hook the reader. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Good call, thanks. I will edit just the lead next and add a second sentence. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

I would make 1.5 a level 2 section. You also need a cite on that first paragraph, right? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, will do that next. I tried it as a level 2 before but was not sure, will also bump up its subsections to level 3 then and dig up a cite.
Sayers book spends paghes and pages on this, and Seeley also mentions it - I think I would Many in the conservation movement had urged the state to buy back the land, especially after the lease was canceled. back in. Of to redo levels. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
crossed out what I've done. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - I added the refs. Feel free to tweak the stuck sentence, I just thought it was important to include it. Copyedit is looking good, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thanks, I did tweak it a bit. Also put it at the start. See what you think. We have two of the same picture, well, two different pictures of the same thing. Is that what you want? Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone through it. Go ahead and nom, let's see what happens! You might need to remove one of the pictures of the ruined cabin. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it Piper Camp or Quehanna Camp? Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

nice pictures, btw. Did you have a good trip? Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec x3) Thanks, it is "Kunes Camp" - assume it is named for whoever owned it (there is a sign for Kunes Farm in the area near Karthaus). I will nominate it at FAC next, let's see if anyone objects to the two images there. There are also two of white birch ;-) I figured the Kunes image in State forests illustrated the camps on leased land and those vacated by Curtiss-Wright, while at the end it is just a nice image - humans have left their mark, but nature is coming back - sort of symbolic of the whole place. Thanks again for all your hard work and patience, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Trip was very nice but had to dash there and back as I could not take a lot of time off. Need to go back when there are leaves on the trees and I can spend more time there. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quehanna_Wild_Area/Archive_1&oldid=1209927743"