Talk:Briar Creek (Susquehanna River tributary)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MeegsC (talk · contribs) 18:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article. It may take several days for the first part of the review to be completed. MeegsC (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's taken me so long to get to this. RL work and a family bout of the flu has slowed things down considerably!

Overall notes

There are too many very short (i.e. 1-2 sentence) paragraphs in this article. Can they be combined somehow?

I don't think there are any now. --Jakob (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How did the stream get its name?

I added a paragraph on the etymology. --Jakob (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Course

Briar Creek begins where Knob Mountain, Huntington Mountain, and Lee Mountain meet in western Briar Creek Township. How does it begin? A spring? Two tributaries coming together?

No idea. It just sort of appears at its headwaters. --Jakob (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The course levels out as it leaves the mountain behind, but it begins flowing through a valley after a short distance. This makes it sound like those two things are mutually exclusive.

Reworded. --Jakob (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soon afterwards, the stream picks up the tributary West Branch Briar Creek[1] and turns southeast. The citation should go at the end of the sentence.

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After some distance, it enters the community of Briar Creek... I'm not sure after some distance is very encyclopedic. Can this be reworded?

It would be difficult to do so since there is no scale on the map. --Jakob (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tributaries

The paragraph listing the length and watershed area of the various tributaries is pretty choppy and hard to read. And where do these tributaries come in to the main stream?

Rewrote. --Jakob (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Briar Lake isn't really a tributary, is it? Perhaps this deserves its own section, particularly since you list some other things about it later in the article.

Everything about the lake has been moved down to the watershed section. --Jakob (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More to come! MeegsC (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC: Anything else? --Jakob (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on the changes; they look great! The tributaries section is much clearer now. A couple of things though:

You've removed some of the tributaries from the "Tributaries" section, but left them in the lead.

Glen Brook, Kashinka Hollow, Cabin Run, and Fester Hollow are sub-tributaries, not direct tributaries. I've removed them. --Jakob (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've changed the name of the lake to Briar Creek Reservoir, but left Briar Creek Lake in a bunch of places; are both correct?

Briar Creek Reservoir is the official GNIS name, though Briar Creek Lake is a prominent local name. I've changed it to consistently say Briar Creek Reservoir. --Jakob (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOS, be sure all information from the lead makes it into the main article.

I think it mostly does? --Jakob (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrology

Wow, that's a lot of numbers! This section is really tough to read; it's basically just four paragraphs of numbers. It's choppy and pretty turgid, and I'm not sure the level of detail is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. (Do we really need to know temperatures to the hundredth of a degree, for example?) Even if it is appropriate, it would be better for your readers if you could expand a bit to explain the numbers — something along the lines of "Briar Creek's water temperature is consistently highest near its source and along the West Branch Briar Creek tributary." Does your source include possible reasons for some of these numbers? Why is the creek so acidic near its source, for example, and why is there such fluctuation in its pH at the same spot?

That level of detail is common in GAs on Pennsylvania streams. I have, however, added a few bits of information into the paragraphs of numbers. --Jakob (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide to keep all the numbers, I'd suggest using more ranges and abbreviations (i.e. "ppm" after the first occurrence rather than typing out "parts per million" each time; ditto "cfs" instead of "cubic feet per second"). That will make it much easier to read by cutting out lots of extraneous words. And if you use ranges like 35.96 to 64.94 °F (2.20 to 18.30 °C), rather than 35.96 °F (2.20 °C) to 64.94 °F (18.30 °C), it makes things easier to read as well, as it cuts down on the number of parenthetical intrusions. In case you don't already know, you can do ranges in the convert template like this: {{convert|35.96|to|64.94|F|C}}.

I know about the to parameter in {{convert}} (though I didn't when I wrote the article). I've made that change. --Jakob (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Please use abbreviations for ppm and cfs after the first instance of each; lots of excess wording in these paragraphs otherwise, all of which makes information harder to find.

Be sure to put a non-breaking space between all numbers and units that aren't in a convert template. {{nowrap|}} is an easy option; see here for more info.

Done. --Jakob (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geology and geography

Personally, I'd lead this section with the sentence "The Briar Creek watershed is located in the ridge and valley physiographic region." Start big, and get smaller!
"The top of Lee Mountain forms a drainage divide between the Briar Creek watershed and another watershed." "Another"? Name it!

The Huntington Creek watershed, but AFAIK the source doesn't state that. --Jakob (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Several points along Briar Creek and its tributaries have erode with easy or moderate ease." There's a missing word, or an extra word, in there somewhere.

Fixed. It was actually a typo. --Jakob (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"in the watershed" gets used far too often in these three paragraphs; see if you can get rid of a few of them by rewriting sentences.

There were three uses; now it's down to two. --Jakob (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you combine that tiny, one-line final paragraph with something else?

I don't think there's any paragraph that it would go coherently with. At least it's two sentences so it's not technically an MOS vio. --Jakob (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watershed

Is it the watershed that occupies the towns, or the towns that fall within the watershed? The latter sounds more natural to me.

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never start a sentence with a number—not even if you spell it out. Several sentences in this section need rewriting.

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does a "B rating" mean, and why are watersheds compared to give that rating?
"The are approximately 44.23 miles (71.18 km) of streams in the Briar Creek watershed." I'm assuming that should be "There are..."

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lake is a manmade lake..." is redundant. How about "The lake, which was manmade,...

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History and etymology

Lenni Lenape is spelled wrong in the first paragraph. Wikilink here, rather than in paragraph 2.

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In paragraph 2, the name of the native Americans is wrong; it should be Shawanese.

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than "Some time before 1911, two dams were constructed ", why not say "By 1911, two dams had been constructed"?

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly done; I'll try to finish up later today. MeegsC (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC: Anything else? --Jakob (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Jakob:—I've been in Guyana, with no internet connection! In the Miami airport now, and should be home tomorrow; will have a look at what's left to do (if anything) then. Thanks for your patience! MeegsC (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC: Are there any more fixes to be made to the article? --Jakob (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jakec: You're nearly done!

I still see a few sentences in the "Geology and geography" and "Biology" sections that start with numbers; can you please restructure those?

There weren't any in the geology section, but done. --Jakob (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this website, the climate divisions are Pocono Mountains (#1) and Middle Susquehanna (#5); you might add that and explain what the climate divisions are, and why they're important enough to include. Just listing them doesn't tell anybody much!

Done. --Jakob (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say the watershed is 33.00 square miles (very precise), but one source (the watershed paper) says "approximately 33", which is much less precise. And the PA Gazetteer (which you cite as the source of this fact) doesn't even mention watersheds! Lose the zeros. :)

The gazetteer only lists it to three significant digits, not four. I've changed it to 33.0. --Jakob (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's happened to the dams you mention in the history section? Are they still there? Was the third one (under construction in 1911) ever finished?

Who knows? The sources don't say. --Jakob (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mention fewer species of fish found in 2006 than before. Is there a reason for that? (The source has some comments as to what might be happening.)

Done. --Jakob (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to finish up all references. You should really include publication year, publisher (with location) and page numbers for all the sources you can; right now, readers have to wade through dozens or hundreds of pages, trying to find what you've cited.

Done. --Jakob (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me when you're done, and I'll pass the article. MeegsC (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC: Done --Jakob (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakec:, there are still a couple of paragraphs beginning with numbers in the "Watershed" section: 7210 acres, or 34% of the watershed is farmland. and 1143 acres, or 6% of the watershed, is urban land. Can you fix those, please? MeegsC (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC: Done --Jakob (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I help with the review? Upon quick reading and speed reading through the article, I did notice a couple red links. Were you planning to make articles for those? If not, you should probably remove the wikilinks as per WP:REDLINK, but only if you are planning not to create articles for those. That's just my personal opinion. Just to let you memorize it, there are 4 red links. Aside from that, I don't see any more problems with this article. All the external lnks are good to go, wth no issues with them at all. I might find some issues later. I think User:MeegsC should promote when he is ready, but I know that it is his GAR so I will let him decide. All in all, thanks for letting me help with this GAR. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 18:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshi, I'd disagree with you on the redlinks; nowhere in WP:REDLINK does it say that you must plan to create the articles yourself if you include a redlink! It actually says Create red links everywhere they are relevant to the context for terms that should exist in the encyclopedia. Personally, I think all of Jake's redlinks are appropriate. If the redlinks aren't there, no-one knows the articles are needed! MeegsC (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC and Yoshi24517: I'd rather the redlinks remain in the article. Assuming there are no remaining issues, can this be promoted now? --Jakob (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay @Jakec:; I've passed this one. Thanks for being patient when it took me so long to finish the review! MeegsC (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Don't worry about the review taking a long time; I know you were busy in real life. --Jakob (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]