Talk:Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River tributary)

Comments

You've done an awful lot of work on this article with very little help. I converted most of the many imperial quantities in the article to metric just now using the "convert" template (Template:Convert), which is very handy in all sorts of situations involving quantities of units. I have a couple of other suggestions for improvement. I would suggest looking at featured articles on rivers to see how other writers and editors have organized their materials. Specifically, I was helped when I did my first stream articles by looking at Larrys Creek. I would also suggest making the article less list-y by including the communities, tributaries, and bridges in the "Course" section. The convention for course descriptions is to start at the headwaters and proceed downstream to the mouth. Mention notable changes (direction, tributary confluence, bridge, dam, road, village, stream gauge, waterfall, and so on) as they occur going downstream. A second convention is to refer to things on the right bank as "right" and things on the wikt:left bank as "left"; e.g., "at X Village, Something Creek enters from the right". Hope this helps. Please ping me on my talk page or comment on this talk page if I can be of further help. Finetooth (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Like this? ^King Jakob _C2 17:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sort of. The basic idea I'm getting at is to turn the lists into prose paragraphs somehow. Some of this can be done by including particular items in the course description itself rather than in a separate section or subsection. However, if there are too many bridges (or some other class of objects) to include in the course description, it might still be necessary to have a "bridges" section. However, this section might then include only the most important or most interesting bridges, about which something further could be said. The less notable bridges could be briefly mentioned in the "course" section. See Aliso Creek (Orange County)#Course for an example of a course description in a featured article. It's pretty long, but it reduces the need for separate sections that simply list all the roads, towns, bridges, etc. Finetooth (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Map

Source

Benton

Mouth

class=notpageimage|

Map showing the location of Source, Mouth and Benton in Pennsylvania

As you were lacking a map, I have created a simple one below for you to add to the article. You may want to check the co-ords, and add at least those for the mouth to your info box which should give you some co-ords for the article. Also consider using the Template:Geobox/type/river which would cope with your mean, min and max river flows; and a lot of other extras. Jokulhlaup (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I requested a map for this article from Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop which was created by Kmusser, and I think you will agree it is impressive. Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Rating

You really think it's only start-class?--^King Jakob _C2 14:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably higher. I just thought "stub" was way off. Finetooth (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

I saw this article was up for GAN, but I don't have time to do the review myself. Here are some suggestions:

• Briefly mention what the Shannon diversity index is.
• I think it is worthwhile mentioning that of the three trout species, only brook trout are native and rainbows are probably stocked for recreation (I'm not sure about brown).
• Scientific genus or species names should be in italics ex: Microspora sp. Where sp. is not italicized.
• The last two-sentence paragraph before biology seems a bit out of place. Perhaps you could expand more on land cover in the watershed and other terrestrial species.
• The "highest density of organisms" paragraph could use some clarification. What organisms were studied and included in this? An organisms could be a fish or a bacterium and anything in between.
• With regard to glaciation, mention when the area was last glaciated. I expect this area was near the terminus of the Laurentide ice sheet during the last glacial period, and thus would have been one of the first ice-free areas once glacial retreat began.

Fredlyfish4 (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the thing about the italics. I'll try to get to the rest soon. ^King Jakob _C2 23:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 17:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

On first pass, this looks strong--well sourced, comprehensive, and ripe for promotion. Thanks again for your work on it. I've marked a few quibbles below, and also made a few minor copyedits as I went; please check that I haven't inadvertently introduced any errors, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• "whereas near in the lower portion of the watershed, " -- the "near in" here confuses me--shouldn't it be just one word or the other?

 Fixed

• "Fishing Creek drains parts of five counties. These counties are Columbia County, Pennsylvania; Montour County, Pennsylvania; Sullivan County, Pennsylvania; and Luzerne County, Pennsylvania." -- am I miscounting, or are there only four counties listed here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed--I'd somehow forgotten to mention one of the counties in the watershed.

• "Prehistory" -- I'm not sure about this as a section title. 1769 is a little late to call "prehistory"; what would you say to "Native American exploration and settlement"? It's a bit clearer.

 Fixed--title changed to early history

• "The first lots at the mouth of Fishing Creek were surveyed in 1769" -- you might make a clearer transition here by noting that British settlers were moving into the area in the 1700s.

 Fixed

• I'd suggest delinking some of the very common terms in the article, like soil, sand, gravel, bear, deer, cannon, school, beach, bridge, etc.; it's not necessary to link such basic definitions. But this isn't a GA criterion, though, so won't affect this review a bit either way.

 Fixed

• Also not an issue for GA, but consider fixing the bare link [1].

I'll get to the bare link in 9 or 10 hours. Thanks for reviewing! ^King Jakob _C2 01:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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.	See minor clarity questions above. Spotchecks show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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).	I'm concerned by the reliance on Google Maps for many facts (distances, etc.). Let me get a second opinion on this and check back in. WP:RS/N archives indicate that Google Maps is an acceptable source for noncontroversial claims. Striking my above comment.
	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).
	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.	Thanks for the super-speedy response! This is a big pass.

Macroinvertebrate density

This is covered twice in different spots in the biology section. It should be edited so the subject is only dealt with once, i think, since both sections talk about ranges of density. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, what was Camp Creasy? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Hamiltonstone: I've merged the paragraphs on density. As for Camp Creasy, this mentions it, but it's impossible to know if it still exists or even when it was established, at least without inferring that information from the date of the book (1961), which would lead to accusations of synthesis or something. --Jakob (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Ruhrfisch

As requested, here are some initial comments on the article (with more to come). I picked one small section to look at initially, on Dams.

Dams

One problem I have with this one paragraph section is that after reading it I have no idea how many dams there currently are on the creek. The paragraph mentions six (and shows a picture of one, Boone's Dam near Bloomsburg). Boone's Dam is the only one referred to in the present tense (is), all the rest are described using the past tense in some way (was built, were) which makes you think the ones that are not Boone's Dam might no longer exist. However, I know there is still a dam in Benton (as I photographed it and uploaded the pic to Commons here).

A possible source for dams on most major PA creeks is Gertler's book "Keystone Canoeing". I do not own it, but know a library that does and will try to look up Fishing Creek in it. Gertler usually describes the extant dams in at least some detail, so that would help here. I think more information on canoeing the creek could be added (using Gertler as a source).

Another issue this section raises is organization. There is a lot of information present, but it is not clear what the organizing theme (if any) is. The dams could be presented in chronological order (if dates of construction are known) or in some sort of geographic order (dams encountered going up stream or down). They might even be presented in terms of use / purpose (so I imagine the older ones were built for sawmills or gristmills, and it may be the newer ones were built for recreation or even flood control). It is even possible that the information could be scattered through the article (no section on dams) - this is what I did in the Larrys Creek article (current dam in Course section, but I had less specific information on dams and more on mills so that was in History).

I know Lycoming County history much better than Columbia County, but I assume that logging played a large role along Fishing Creek too (and if so, that there were likely many sawmills and associated dams). I know it depends on sources, but there is very little on logging / lumber / sawmills in the article currently.

Once the information is better organized, the prose needs work.

Watershed map

There is a lovely watershed map (currently in the Box in the lead), but several features shown on the map are not mentioned in the article. Ricketts Glen State Park is shown (and labeled) but not mentioned. State lands (mostly game land, but presumably state forest too) are shown in lighter green, but barely mentioned (I would think the Recreation section would list these major protected areas in the watershed too). Kitchen Creek and Pine Creek are also shown, but not mentioned.

Hope this helps, more to come. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• The dams are organized from downstream to upstream. It first mentions a dam in Bloomsburg, then one in northern Bloomsburg, then one north of Bloomsburg, then two in Orangeville and Orange Township, then one in Benton. I'll try to order the Gertler book on Amazon today; I'll rewrite the dam section when I get that book Perhaps merging the dams section with the history section is a better idea. Maybe it will also tell me something about logging and such, but if not, I'll look at the old local history books again. Benton Dam is now referred to in the present tenses and I found the Irondale Dam in a USGS map, meaning it might still exist. Subtributaries like Kitchen Creek and Pine Creek (and Mud Run) are probably best dealt with in the list of tributaries.
• I'm not sure how the prose could still need work when it's been copyedited something like six times by four different users. --Jakob (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - it would help if the paragraph somehow indicated the way the dams are ordered. I am somewhat familiar with Columbia County and did not realize that they were listed in upstream order. I found a listing of dams from the state here which shows five "run of the river dams" on Fishing Creek (Boone's is listed twice for some reason). it gives each dam's name, coordinates, height and width. I would list the current dams in either up or downstream order first (and make clear their order). Then I would discuss historic dams - would you be able to figure out if any of the historic dams already in the article are ones listed by the state website?

The article needs to be more careful in using (and reading) sources used - the state website lists two dams near Benton (one in the borough and one in the township) and the source the article uses for the one Benton dam mentioned actually says there are two dams near Benton "There are two dams on Fishing Creek, with one located just north of Benton across from Mill Race Golf Course and the second in downtown Benton." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the PA Fish and Boat Commission website only lists existing dams (seems to be implied). I've cut out the historic dams because it is impossible to tell if they are historic or not based on their inclusion in an old book are exclusion from the PAFBC website. Also, the dams section is under the hydrology heading, so perhaps it's best to keep it to present features anyway. --Jakob (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160210070243/http://waterdata.usgs.gov/pa/nwis/current?type=flow to http://waterdata.usgs.gov/pa/nwis/current/?type=flow

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131227001853/http://www.usgwarchives.org/maps/pa/county/columb/usgs/sugarloa.jpg to http://www.usgwarchives.org/maps/pa/county/columb/usgs/sugarloa.jpg
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.usgwarchives.org/maps/pa/county/columb/usgs/orangmpl.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150408034925/http://fishandboat.com/rrdam.htm to http://fishandboat.com/rrdam.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130831230909/http://fishingcreeksportsmanassn.org/Downloads/conservation_plan.pdf to http://www.fishingcreeksportsmanassn.org/Downloads/conservation_plan.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)