Talk:Little Fishing Creek/GA1

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The lead is very hard to follow. The list of townships then a list of tributaries are rough going. Reminds me of those genealogy lists in the Bible (this person begot …). Further down in the article, under Course, that same information is easy to digest as it flows (pun intended), which avoids the issue of slogging through lists. Something like "It is approximately 23.1 miles (37.2 km) long, flows through eight townships, and has nine tributaries" would fix this.

Would be better to change stuff like "few tenths of a mile" to either an exact measure or something like "under a quarter mile."

Has two dead links which can probably be fixed by using [1].

Abel (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: Perhaps it is better now? All changes have been made except for the course section, where it would be very difficult to make precise measurements, which probably don't matter to the reader anyway. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jakec: Thank you for that extensive amount of editing work. The article is now much easier to read. You are correct in that precise measurements are not required everywhere in an article, however, precise language is required. For example, "in the past" is unacceptable for a good article. The one instance of that I tagged with {{when?}}. I think I got all of the rest of the vaguely worded text (at least, a number of, short distance, fairly), but having you look for more would be smart before I review again.

I suspect that most of the claims that need citations are actually covered by citations found in later sentences. If so, reusing the existing citations is absolutely okay. Doing that will leave no doubt that every claim has a valid citation. Abel (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Id4abel: Actually, policy says that no citations are required in the lead, which makes sense, because it summarizes the body, which is cited. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jakec: The undo action performed a lot more than only removing the {{cn}} markers that offended you. Good articles reviewers are instructed to make changes rather than just explain what needs to be done. That said, if you are just going to undo changes rather than continue to edit the article, then there is no point in this review. Abel (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Your edits also made incorrect changes to the wording, altering the flow of sentences and in some cases making it more precise than the sources support. If you can hand this off to another reviewer, feel free to do so, but I do not want to keep this in the queue for another half a year. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Have it your way. Abel (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)