Wikipedia:Featured article review/Paulins Kill/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 6:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC) [1].

Paulins Kill[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Rivers, WikiProject New Jersey, WikiProject Geology

Review section[edit]

Before I started editing Paulins Kill, there were multiple unsourced paragraphs and sentences. Digging deeper in just half the article, I've tagged multiple cited paragraphs as original research or verification needed. Since this subject matter is outside my scope, please check my work.

This article's major contributions was the result of User:ExplorerCDT, then later one or more of his sockpuppets. Paulins Kill is listed on User:ColonelHenry/Cleanup as a possible WP:CCI. I've added numerous URLs to "Books and printed materials" to aid in this review. « Ryūkotsusei » 20:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Concerns raised while FAR was on hold
I agree that this article needs reviewing (and do his others), and I'm glad to see someone taking the initiative. However, you have only begun tagging it today, and have not posted to the article talk page or notified any other contributors to the article, so no one has had a chance to respond. Given the hoaxing issues discovered elsewhere, I absolutely understand your concern here, but the tags you placed (1 for original research; 3 citation needed; 2 verification needed) and the content of the tagged statements do not seem to indicate such egregious issues as to warrant skipping steps of the regular FAR process. Suggest you temporarily remove the FAR tag and post to article talk to give other editors of the article a chance to address these issues prior to proceeding to FAR, if necessary. Maralia (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no rush. I'll put it on hold to give interested parties a bit of extra time to consider potential improvements. « Ryūkotsusei » 21:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I was heavily involved in the Peer Review and FAC back in 2006, but do not have special knowledge about the stream beyond that. I kept an eye on the article when User:Vanished user azby388723i8jfjh32 disappeared for several years from Wikipedia (coming back later as User:Colonel Henry). I added the current lead image when the previous one was deleted (it is from Flickr). I do not have the time or sources to work on checking the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryūkotsusei: A fair bit of work has been done on this in the last couple weeks, some of it by me. My impression thus far is that there's nothing heinously wrong aside from general sloppiness, but two sets of eyes are better than one, and (like most articles promoted so long ago) it definitely needed some tuning anyway. Currently there is only one unresolved tag. Would you take another look and see if you can identify anything else that needs work? Thanks for being patient. Maralia (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not liking the Latin vocab used instead of page or chapter numbers for cited books spanning hundreds of pages. As if its not enough work already finding the book, but once you do... search around? If that's a real issue at FAR, you know that will be time consuming to fix. « Ryūkotsusei » 00:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Ugh—I hadn't yet made it that far down the article in verifying sources. I absolutely agree that there's a major problem with missing page numbers for book cites. The rules used to be much more lax, but we definitely can't have things like multiple passim cites of a 1,000+ page book. The entire history section is largely unverifiable, with so many missing page numbers. Can you help add {{pn}} tags where you see page numbers missing? I will do so as well, and once we've demonstrated the scope of the problem with tags, I think it's time to put this back up at FAR. Thanks for your help. Maralia (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged 9 {{pn}} plus reference 14 as {{nonspecific}}. « Ryūkotsusei » 22:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


Procedural note: This FAR was previously put on hold to give editors some time to try addressing issues raised above and on the article's talk page. (While it was on hold, I performed a copyedit and rewrote/re-sourced the Watershed section, so I am recused on this one.) Outstanding concerns at the moment include potential copyright issues mentioned above (although none have been identified thus far), and the verifiability of the Early settlement section, where page numbers were not provided in many book citations. Maralia (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC. Thanks for the work done on the article, but I've just tried to verify some of the content and of the four sources I checked against the material in the article, only one is clearly supportive. The statement The NJPIRG has ranked the Paulins Kill as the seventh in a collection of rivers and creeks in a Top 30 listing of 'New Jersey waterways to Save' was sourced to a press release now offline. I managed to verify this in a secondary source. However, the claim that the Paulins Kill viaduct was the largest [concrete] viaduct in the world was sourced to an ASCE page on a different bridge, but this source only appears (at least at the present time) to talk about the other bridge. The Paulins Kill viaduct isn't mentioned at all. Some of the history section is sourced to an 1895 book by Chambers, but I could find only one mention of the kill in Chambers on page 18, and it doesn't say much at all. Finally, the material sourced to Schaeffer and Johnson (1907) is not, in my opinion, verifiable. For example: the book was published in 1907 and so it cannot support (as it claims to do) the statements Still, pollution reaches the Paulins Kill from nearby residential developments and farm run-off containing agricultural pesticides and fertilizers. Several farms along the banks of the Paulins Kill produce alfalfa, wheat, corn, hay (and historically, barley, buckwheat and rye). Fruit trees in orchards produce cherries, apples, plums, peaches and pears, while native wild grape vines, and blackberry bushes are also found in the valley. DrKiernan (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAR coordinators: Is anything else needed for sectioning this to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Outstanding issues from the review section mostly concern verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well ?? @Ryūkotsusei:, @Maralia:, @DrKiernan:. Enough progress? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist. Unresolved issues, detailed in the review section. DrKiernan (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delist as nominator. A lot of printed materials lack page numbers, and span hundreds of pages. « Ryūkotsusei » 20:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist due to verifiability concerns, especially within the History section but also elsewhere as noted above. DrKiernan, could you tag the specific statements that you noted as failing verification? Thanks. Maralia (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Paulins_Kill/archive1&oldid=1216960148"